Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND BURMA ACTS, 1935.

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD (Mr. GRIMSTON) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as followeth:

I have received your addresses praying that the Government of India (Provincial Legislative Assemblies) (Amendment) Order, 1939, the Government of Burma (India-Burma Financial Settlement) Order, 1939, and the Government of Burma (Shan States Federal Fund) Order, 1939, be made in the form of the respective drafts laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Aberdeen and Kincardine (Kincardine and Western Division), in the room of Sir Charles Malcolm Barclay-Harvey (Manor of Northstead). —[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London and North Eastern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill. Bills committed.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table-Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Croydon Corporation [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Willenhall Urban District Council Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Jarrow Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 23rd March.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of old age pensioners in the county of Linlithgow; how many of these were given public assistance during 1938; and the cost of this assistance?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): As old age pension records are not kept on a geographical basis I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. With regard to the second and third parts, the county council inform me that during the week ended 15th May, 1938, the most recent date for which information is available, 703 old age pensioners were afforded outdoor assistance at a cost of £172 8s. 9d. for that week.

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman take any lesson from those figures, and does he propose to recommend the Government to do anything about it?

Mr. Colville: That is another question.

NATIONAL TRUST OFFERS (EDINBURGH).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the city of Edinburgh has accepted the offer made on 20th February last by the National


Trust for the preservation of Tailors' Hall buildings, and also the offer of HeriotWatt College to use them for library and other purposes?

Mr. Colville: I am informed that the corporation have decided not to accept the offers referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Hannah: Were the terms of the offer fully set out to the committee by the Town Clerk of Edinburgh?

Mr. Colville: That is a matter on which I can hardly pronounce, but I understand that the terms were fully known by the corporation.

Mr. Hannah: Is it known that the National Trust is very much dissatisfied?

DALBEATTIE TOWN COUNCIL (EMPLOYÉ'S DEFALCATIONS).

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps it is proposed to take to determine the financial responsibility of the Town Clerk of Dalbeattie to his council in respect of defalcations by an employé of the Town Clerk; whether he is aware that the council has refused to submit the matter to him; whether the council has obtained counsel's opinion; and what action he proposes to have the whole matter cleared up satisfactorily?

Mr. Colville: I am informed that the town council have considered how to meet the deficiency in question, and have decided to charge it to the rating account. I am not aware of the terms of any opinion by counsel on the matter. The propriety of any method adopted by a local authority for dealing with a deficiency is a matter which falls to be considered by the auditor, and I have no authority to disallow any item which he decides to allow. The public audit of the accounts of the burgh was held on the 9th instant, and I have to-day received a report from the auditor that he has considered the defalcations and has decided to allow them as an item of expenditure.

Mr. Mathers: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that opinion? Does he not think that some action is called for from him in respect of this matter?

Mr. Colville: I have no power to do other than accept the opinion put to me by the auditor under the appropriate Act.

EMERGENCY BILLETING (ISLE OF RUM).

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether inquiries have now been made in the Island of Rum regarding billeting arrangements for children and mothers to be evacuated from the vulnerable areas in the event of war; and whether the local authority was afforded reasonable facilities of access for its investigators?

Mr. Colville: It was decided to exclude from the evacuation survey the whole of the island districts of Inverness-shire, and accordingly the county council were not asked to make inquiries in the Island of Rum.

Mr. Johnston: Why should this island, a close preserve of one proprietor, have been exempted from these billeting arrangements?

Mr. Colville: It was not confined to this island. The islands of Eigg, Muck and Canna, which are adjacent, were not examined for the reason I stated in my answer.

Mr. Johnston: Is it not a fact that these three islands are also close preserves of a single proprietor, and what good reason exists at the Scottish Office why the particular preserves of a few proprietors should be exempted?

Mr. Colville: The question of ownership was not a determining factor. It is a question of the remoteness of the islands. I am considering the results of the survey which I have received, and if it should be necessary to consider evacuation to these islands, I shall not hesitate to do so.

HOUSING (CASTLEBAY, BARRA).

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent delay would have been caused in making avail able for housing an acre of land in Castle bay, Barra, by contesting the demand by the owner for a feu duty of £12, deemed to be excessive by the Department of Health?

Mr. Colville: I am informed that as a result of negotiation an agreement has recently been reached between the county council and the owner for the payment of a feu duty of £8.

Mr. Leonard: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the part of my question with regard to delay?

Mr. Colville: It is impossible to do so with any certainty. The time required for the compulsory acquisition procedure varies from case to case, and three to four months may be regarded generally as the minimum. I understand that an amicable settlement has now been reached.

Mr. Leonard: In view of the location of this housing site, does the sum of £8 seem reasonable?

Mr. Colville: That is the figure agreed between the two parties.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) why he is delaying consideration of the report of the Scottish Development Council on Scotland's industrial future;
(2) what steps he is taking to carry out the findings of the Scottish Development Council that Scotland's essential need at present is more consumers goods industries?

Mr. Colville: The report of the Economic Committee of the Scottish Development Council on Scotland's Industrial Future, which I think the hon. Member has in mind, was issued on 6th February last and is being carefully studied by the Departments and interests concerned. I have had discussions with the chairman of the committee, and I understand that the committee have submitted evidence to the Royal Commission on the Geographical Distribution of the Population. In the meantime, as the hon. Member is aware, efforts are being made in a variety of directions to promote the development of industry in Scotland, and, as has already been announced, legislation will be proposed to facilitate the provision of loans for new industrial undertakings in certain areas of heavy unemployment.

Mr. Leonard: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to urge the Government to expedite the report of the Commission on the Location of Industries?

Mr. Colville: The hon. Member refers now not to the Scottish report, but to the United Kingdom Commission, which is rather a different question.

ARRESTED MAN'S DEATH, BO'NESS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has con-

sidered the findings of the jury recorded at Linlithgow Sheriff Court on 28th February upon the circumstances attending the death, in Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, of William Gilmour Girvan, after his arrest and detention at Bo'ness police office, on 2nd January; and whether he proposes to take action, in accordance with the jury's recommendations, as to this particular case, and generally?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): A verbatim report of the evidence led at this inquiry is being obtained with a view to determining whether any action is called for on the part of the criminal authorities. Until Crown counsel have completed their examination I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. Mathers: When will the Lord Advocate be in a position to make a further statement? May I ask him, also, to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the last recommendation of the jury, which was to the effect that a person in the condition of this unfortunate man should not be left in a cell.

The Lord Advocate: I expect that the examination of the question will be completed in a few days, and as soon as the legal authorities have disposed of the case, the matter will be passed to my right hon. Friend from the point of view of police administration.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of Government contracts placed with the iron and steel industry of Scotland for the years 1936, 1937 and 1938, respectively?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I have made inquiries, but there would be great difficulty in getting out these figures, for a large part of the iron and steel supply drawn from Scotland is in the form of material used in contracts placed in England.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in recent reports it was indicated that along with the increase of profits in this industry because of war contracts, unemployment has increased in the industry?

INSURANCE AND ASSURANCE COMPANIES.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of insurance and assurance companies now operating in Scotland?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Two hundred and sixty-eight companies carrying on business within the United Kingdom made returns to the Board of Trade during the year 1938 in pursuance of the provisions of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909. I have no information as to the number of these companies which carried on insurance business in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

OIL EXTRACTION.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Secretary for Mines the total output of oil from coal in this country from low temperature carbonisation and by hydrogenation, respectively, during the years 1936, 1937, and 1938, and the average cost per gallon?

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of oil from coal extracted during the years 1936, 1937, and 1938, respectively, with the total market value in each year?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crook-shank): The available information for the years 1936 and 1937 is given on pages 18 to 21 of my annual report for 1937. Particulars for 1938 are not yet available. I have no information as to the cost per gallon or the market value of these products.

Mr. Stewart: As the country largely depends for oil supplies on imports from abroad, is it the intention of the Government at an early date to set up oil-producing plant in this country so as to make us somewhat independent of foreign imports?

Captain Crookshank: That has nothing to do with this question.

Mr. Batey: The Minister says he has not the figures for 1938. As he has been asked before for that information, and as there are so few plants, when does he expect to have the figures?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot say offhand.

Mr. Batey: Is not the Minister trying to get the figures of output?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member must realise that it is not so easy as he imagines. These figures are called for at regular periods and are incorporated in my annual report.

Mr. Batey: Have we to wait until the Minister issues his annual report before we get the figures?

Captain Crookshank: Not necessarily.

Mr. David Adams: In view of the advantage in the matter of defence, and of the benefits in the matter of employment, does not the Minister intend to prosecute this form of production?

Captain Crookshank: That is quite another question.

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that an experimental plant for getting oil from coal is working at Bedley, near Glasgow; will he inquire whether it is satisfactory; and will he try such experiment in the South Wales depressed coal field?

Captain Crookshank: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 28th February to the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. Edwards). The question of the erection of any further plants is a matter for the commercial interests concerned.

Sir W. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines the result of the latest experiments taken by his Department, or any other concern, in extracting oil from coal; whether it is now a commercial proposition; and will he take steps to establish new plants in the South Wales area, where there is an increasing number of miners being rendered idle through the closing down of collieries?

Captain Crookshank: I would refer the hon. Member to the annual report of the Fuel Research Board for the latest results of the Government's research work on oil from coal, and to the report of the Falmouth Committee for a statement of the economic issues. As to the third part of the question, the principal recommendation of the Falmouth Committee was that Government assistance to oil from coal should take the form of a continuation of the guaranteed preference,


and effect to this was given in the Finance Act, 1938. The Government do not grant direct financial assistance to oil from coal schemes, apart from assistance for which such schemes might qualify under the Special Areas Acts, and I would remind the hon. Member that a plant will shortly be completed in South Wales which has been partly financed under those Acts.

ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines the reasons for the reduction of 30 per cent. in our exports of anthracite coal to France in 1938 as compared with the previous year; and what steps are being taken to restore this trade to its normal level?

Captain Crookshank: The decline in United Kingdom anthracite exports to France in 1938, like the corresponding decline in exports of other United Kingdom coal to this market, was mainly due to the heavy fall in the French demand for coal. It was also partly due to difficulties under the French quota system, and in respect of these I have every confidence that the position will be improved by the new arrangements to which I referred in the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 16th December last.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that in recent weeks there has been a continuing decline in the demand from France, is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that during the coming summer there will be an increase in that demand?

Captain Crookshank: I cannot forecast trade during the whole year, but I hope that the difficulties to which I referred in December will have been cleared up by the arrangements since made.

ANGLO-GERMAN NEGOTIATIONS.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the progress made in the Anglo-German negotiations for an agreement on the export of coal?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can inform the House of the terms of the agreement reached between the British and the German coal industries?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, I have nothing to add at present to the replies I

gave last week to the hon. Members for the Bassetlaw Division of Nottingham (Mr. Bellenger) and Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson).

BOY WORKERS (HOLLAND).

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines the age at which boys are allowed to begin work in the Dutch coal mines?

Captain Crookshank: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.

ACCIDENTS (HOLLAND).

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines the rate of fatal accidents per 1,000 men employed or per 100,000 shifts worked, in the Dutch coal mines for the years 1937 and 1938?

Captain Crookshank: The fatal accident rate in the Dutch coal mines for the year 1937 was 0.17 per 100,000 manshifts worked. Information in regard to the year 1938 is not yet available.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the Minister say how that figure compares with the accident rate in this country?

Captain Crookshank: It is better, if that is the right term to use.

MINERS' ASTHMA.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the existence among mine workers in the Durham coalfield of many cases of asthma, alleged to be due to the reek from shot-firing; and whether he will make an investigation into this matter?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir; but as I said in reply to the hon. Member on 21st February, if he will furnish me with any reliable information at his disposal, I shall be glad to study it.

Mr. Adams: Does the Minister not think that that is an unreasonable request to make to the hon. Member for Consett? I am giving him a general statement; this disease undoubtedly prevails. Will the Minister not look into the matter with a view to remedying it?

Captain Crookshank: I asked the hon. Member, as long ago as 21st February, to send me any evidence he had and said that I should be glad to examine it, and as I have not received any evidence from him I presume that he could not find any.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that in the mines of Africa it was agreed by the experts that silicosis was the highest single cause of death?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, I am not aware of that of my own knowledge, and, anyhow, this question deals with coal mines in Durham and with asthma, and not silicosis.

Mr. Griffiths: Much the same thing.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister not aware that from time to time this form of disease has been mixed up with silicosis by his Department, and that they have denied that it was silicosis? There really have been cases of this disease.

RUNAWAY TRUCKS (SAFETY DEVICES).

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the side warrick control method of stopping runaway trucks, as described in page 424 of the Transactions of the Institute of Mining Engineers, volume 93, part VI, and used by the several Lancashire collieries; and whether he is satisfied that this is generally satisfactory?

Captain Crookshank: I am advised that the automatic side control warrick referred to is in use at four collieries in Lancashire and that when kept in proper adjustment it is an effective device for stopping runaways. Drop-warricks and tub arresters of various types are extensively used in all the coalfields, and His Majesty's inspectors of mines take every opportunity of advocating the use of such safety devices and getting them applied where they think necessary.

STEMMING PLUGS.

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the adequacy of dry lime-stone and sand- stemming plugs as described in the Trans actions of the Institution of Mining Engineers, volume 94, part V, page 424; and whether these are considered generally satisfactory?

Captain Crookshank: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

NATURAL RESOURCES (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the

report of the Commission on the natural resources of Southern Rhodesia has yet been published; and whether he will make it available to Members of this House?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Sir Thomas Inskip): I understand that no report has yet been published. I shall be glad to arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as they are available.

Mr. Lunn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects that it will be published?

Sir T. Inskip: No, Sir, I have no information at present.

NATIVES (CONVICTIONS).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of natives in Southern Rhodesia who have been convicted under pass laws during the years 1936 and 1937?

Sir T. Inskip: According to the reports of the Southern Rhodesia Department of Justice for the years in question, the figures are:

Convictions.


1936
…
…
…
16,390


1937
…
…
…
12,864

Mr. Day: Up to 1937 there had been a gradual increase. Has the Minister received any report to show why there were so many convictions up to that date?

Sir T. Inskip: I am happy to say that in 1937 there was a very substantial decrease in the number of convictions.

Mr. Paling: Can the Minister say whether there has been some alteration in the law, or whether some of the laws have been cut out?

Sir T. Inskip: There has been no alteration of the law which would account for this result.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES (DOMINIONS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to what extent the Dominions have concurred in the action of the British Government, as set out in the letter to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations regarding the General Act for the pacific settlement of international disputes?

Sir T. Inskip: Similar action to that taken by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom was taken by His Majesty's Government in New Zealand. The Union of South Africa is not a party to the General Act. No action has been taken by the other Dominion Governments.

Mr. Mander: Was there not any consultation with the Dominions Governments before the British Government took this action?

Sir T. Inskip: The Dominions Governments are always kept informed of these matters.

Mr. Mander: The British Government are going to act differently, then, from other Governments. Is it not possible to co-ordinate Imperial foreign policy better than this?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (ITALIAN SHIPPING SUBSIDY).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs particulars of the arrangement made by the South African Government for the purposes of extending the subsidy to the Italian Line steamships?

Sir T. Inskip: The subsidy referred to came to an end in February and the Union Minister of Commerce and Industries has announced that it is not proposed to renew it.

Mr. Day: Are we to understand that there are no subsidies to other countries similar to that which existed?

Sir T. Inskip: Not that I am aware of.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

DIVISIONAL FOOD OFFICERS.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the present duties of the 18 Divisional Food Officers to whom annual retaining fees amounting to a total of 1,600 guineas per annum are being paid; and the amount of time at present being devoted by them weekly to those duties?

Mr. Stanley: The main duties of Divisional Food Officers are to act as advisers to the Department on food control matters arising in their divisions; to help with the selection of the personnel of the local

organisation; to give advice as to the plans for food control in time of war to those engaged in the wholesale and retail distribution of food and related materials; to assist in the formation of road food transport groups; and to maintain contact with the various special organisations of the food trades in their areas. The amount of time devoted to these duties varies in the different areas and at different times, but on the average over the last four months it may be broadly stated as equivalent to one-third to one-half of full-time service.

Mr. Mander: Will they be required to live somewhere in the areas for which they are responsible?

Mr. Stanley: I think they are all living either inside their areas or just outside.

Mr. Garro Jones: On what principle have the Government decided to pay a retaining fee for this form of National Service while expecting large numbers of other persons to give National Service free?

Mr. Stanley: For the simple reason that the Board of Trade have no provincial organisation at all, and that it is essential that they should have in each area somebody upon whose services they have first call. Of course, they get an immense amount of voluntary work free in people's spare time, but in the case of these food officers they have the first call upon them, and can issue instructions.

Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say for how long these retaining fees will be paid?

Mr. Stanley: They have been paid for a number of years.

Mr. Garro Jones: Then may it be taken that if it is necessary for the Government to have first call upon the services of anybody, high or low, he shall be paid a retaining fee pending the outbreak of an emergency?

Mr. Stanley: That is a hypothetical question. The greater part of the work is done as voluntary work, for which we are grateful, but this has, in the ordinary course of events, to take second place to a man's ordinary work.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Is not this a very small price to pay for a great service?

FOOD RATIONING.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the last War it was often difficult for the lowly-paid workers to obtain food; and whether his plans for rationing food in an emergency include plans for ensuring that the unemployed and lowly-paid workers will be able to obtain food as easily as their richer fellow-citizens?

Mr. Stanley: The plans provide for the control of the prices of all important foodstuffs as one element in the control of supplies and distribution. The rationing scheme is designed to make available to all persons equally at authorised prices prescribed amounts of the rationed commodities.

Mr. Kirkwood: In the event of the price of food rising, will the incomes of the unemployed and of the lower-paid workers rise in comparison?

Mr. Stanley: That is rather a different question. The plan is to control prices as well as amounts.

FOOD STORAGE.

Sir Arthur Salter: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether additional storage has been constructed, under the powers given by the Essential Commodities Act, for the purpose of taking the food supplies which the Government has bought and intends to buy, or whether, in any case, existing storage has been used in such a way as to have an adverse effect upon private imports?

Mr. Stanley: Additional storage has been constructed for some of the Government food reserves. Where use has been made of existing storage it has not had, so far, any adverse effect upon commercial imports. Representations were, however, made to me regarding the prospective shortage of storage space at Liverpool for private imports of grain, and steps have already been taken by my Department to relieve the situation. The matter is receiving further consideration in consultation with representatives of the grain trade.

Sir A. Salter: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is constructing or acquiring otherwise than by withdrawal from the trade adequate accommodation for all actual and prospective Government purchases?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir; I could not give that assurance. If I believe that there is in any case storage which is not likely to be used in any way by the trade, I should be prepared to use that for Government purchases.

WHEAT RESERVES.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the policy of the Government is to replace the existing wheat security reserves by some of the wheat now arriving in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stanley: Wheat in the Government reserves is replaced when this becomes necessary to avoid risk of deterioration. Some of the wheat now arriving in the United Kingdom represents such replacements.

Mr. De la Bèe: Have the Government's emergency stocks of wheat been created and maintained at the expense of merchant stocks, and can it be said that they are in any way additional to the merchant stocks? Is not the whole matter involved in an unnecessary air of mystery? In view of the fact that I have had no answer, I propose to raise the whole matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION.

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade approximately how the volume of industrial production in 1938 compared with that in 1931?

Mr. Stanley: The volume of industrial production, as measured by the Board of Trade index, was between 35 and 40 per cent. greater in 1938 than in 1931.

Mr. Davidson: Has the armaments production of the present Government affected this figure considerably as compared with 1931?

Mr. Stanley: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. J. Griffiths: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the effect of the volume of industrial production between 1931 and 1938, in view of the unemployment figures?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member would take the figures in relation not to the unemployed but to the employed he would get a better comparison.

MACHINERY (IMPORT).

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of machinery in 1938 amounted to 124,278 tons as compared with 93,145 tons in 1931; what proportion of the increase is attributable to machinery not obtainable in the United Kingdom which is required for the rearmament programme; and what steps it is proposed to take to restrict the importation of competitive machinery from overseas, by quota or otherwise, having regard to the fact that in January there were 220,000 persons unemployed in the engineering and other metal-using industries?

Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. About 27 per cent., by value, of the machinery imported during 1938 was licensed for duty-free importation on the ground that similar machinery was not for the time being procurable in the United Kingdom, but I am unable to say how much of this machinery was required in connection with the rearmament programme. As regards the last part of the question, it is open to the engineering industry to apply to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for increased protection if it is claimed that the industry is suffering from foreign competition in the home market.

Mr. Liddall: Will the engineering industry be able to count upon the support of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Stanley: The application has to be made to an independent tribunal.

Mr. Liddall: Will the industry have the right hon. Gentleman's support?

HOSIERY.

Mr. Lyons: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the large amount of foreign-made hosiery merchandise imported into this country during the last six months; and whether he can estimate the approximate amount of employment that would have arisen in this country by the manufacture here of that amount of merchandise?

Mr. Stanley: The aggregate declared value of imports of hosiery in the six months ended 31st January, 1939, was £1,258,000, as compared with £1,319,000 in the corresponding period a year earlier.
As has been previously explained to my hon. and learned Friend, I am unable to give an estimate of the amount of employment that would be provided by the manufacture here of the hosiery that is imported.

Mr. Lyons: In view of the large demand and of the danger of the home trade and employment being displaced, can my right hon. Friend say what steps he is prepared to take to relieve the conditions of emergency in this very large industry?

Mr. Stanley: If my hon. and learned Friend has followed this matter he will be aware that this question of hosiery has been or is to be discussed between the industrialists of this country and those of Germany.

Mr. Lyons: Will my right hon. Friend receive a deputation from this country to see how it can be helped by means of the existing machinery?

Mr. Stanley: Certainly, but one of the things which the industry itself is now inquiring into is how far conversations with the German manufacturers can help to improve the situation.

Mr. Lyons: In view of the fact that, in that one country, conditions of—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Lyons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the fact that representations by the National Federation of Hosiery Manufacturers for increased duties on foreign-made hosiery merchandise were made in July, 1938, to the Import Duties Advisory Committee; and whether he can state the reasons for the delay and when a decision may be expected?

Sir J. Simon: It is the practice of the Committee not to disclose what applications are under consideration until it becomes necessary to advertise them in the usual way. No advertisement has been issued up to the present in respect of the goods to which my hon. and learned Friend refers, and I regret that I am therefore not in a position to give answers to his questions.

Mr. Lyons: In view of the position would my right hon. Friend consider asking the committee to expedite the hearing of this application?

Sir J. Simon: I do not know that I can undertake to do that, but I am sure the matter has not been overlooked.

SHIPBUILDING.

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the difficulty of obtaining a detailed analysis of the rise in the cost of ship building, and the necessity for the proper presentation of the facts, he will obtain such particulars for the last 10 years for all classes of tonnage and publish them in a White Paper?

Mr. Stanley: Changes which are continually being made in the type and equipment of ships make it impossible to give exact comparisons of the prices of new ships of all kinds over a period of years. A general indication of the position is, however, given by a record which has been maintained by the journal "Fairplay" for a number of years of the fluctuations in the price of a 7,500–ton (deadweight) cargo steamer. This shows that the price of such a steamer remained fairly steady at about £9 a ton between 1926 and 1935; it then rose to £14 8s. in the early part of 1938 and fell again to £12 13s. 4d. a ton in December, 1938. There has, I understand, been some further decrease since then.

Miss Ward: Do the figures cover the alleged increase in the price of auxiliary machinery and other parts?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, I think so.

Miss Ward: Could the information be made available to the House?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the comparison for foreign ships with the same improvements?

Mr. Stanley: I will certainly get any information I can in respect of foreign shipping, because it is subject to the same difficulties as I have explained for British shipping.

IRON AND STEEL.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the President of the Board of Trade the reasons for the decline in our exports of steel and galvanised sheets and tin plates from 820,000 tons in 1937 to 530,000 tons in 1938; and what steps he is taking to recover this trade, and thus to reduce the heavy unemployment in these industries?

Mr. Stanley: The decline in world demand is the main cause of the fall in our exports of these goods. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 15th March last.

WEST INDIES.

Mr. Johnston: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make any decision or statement upon the proposals submitted to him in the summer of last year for the marketing of salted herring from Britain in the West Indies and in return marketing of an equivalent value of citrus fruits from the West Indies to this country?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that the Herring Industry Board are now actively considering this question and are in communication with Jamaica in the matter. A report has recently been received from the Governor of Jamaica and I am proposing to inform the right hon. Gentleman as soon as possible of the substance of the Governor's observations, which are also being communicated to the Herring Industry Board.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to expedite the inquiries into this matter, and is he not aware that it is very disheartening to anyone who offers a reasonable suggestion for the relief of unemployment and the betterment of trade that it should take nine months to get a reply?

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have been pressing things as far as I can and that it does not depend upon me. I think he also knows the reason for the delay.

JAPANESE TIN WHISTLES.

Mr. Higgs: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that tin whistles used in Christmas crackers are coming in from Japan at 1s. 8½d. per gross; and is he prepared to prohibit the importation of these whistles in the interest of firms who manufacture them in this country, and who are paying trade board wages?

Mr. Stanley: Imports of tin whistles are not separately distinguished in the trade returns, but I am aware that substantial quantities of cheap metal toys are imported from Japan. I have no power to-prohibit the importation of these goods.

Mr. Higgs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade balance between this country and Japan is one of the worst, so far as this country is concerned?

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade particulars of the number of cinema exhibitors and/or renters who, during the previous three" years, have failed to comply with the quota provisions of the Cinematograph Films Acts, 1927 and 1938; and the number of these persons who have been prosecuted, and with what results?

EXHIBITORS' DEFAULTS.


Year ended 30th September.
Defaults.
Prosecutions.


Part year.
Full year.
Total.
Convictions.
Dismissed under Probation of Offenders Act.
Total.


1936
…
…
…
129
213
342
12
1
13


1937
…
…
…
140
139
279
3
—
3


1938*
…
…
…
42
30
72
—
—
—


* Defaults are normally considered by the Cinematograph Films Council and this consideration is not yet completed for the year ending 30th September, 1938. No prosecutions will be undertaken in any of the cases which have already been under consideration.

RENTERS' DEFAULTS.


Year ended 31st March.
Defaults.
Prosecutions.


1936
…
…
…
…
12
None


1937
…
…
…
…
10
"


1938
…
…
…
…
10
"

SPAIN (DEBTS).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any estimate of the amount of trade debts owing to Great Britain by Spain; and what arrangements are being made for their liquidation?

Mr. Stanley: The amount of trade debts due to United Kingdom creditors from Spain in respect of which peseta deposits have been made with the Banco Exterior de Espana for ultimate transfer under the provisions of the Anglo-Spanish Payments Agreement is approximately £4,500,000. In addition, particulars have been furnished to my Department of other outstanding trade debts amounting to about £500,000. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to endeavour to

Mr. Stanley: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate this information in the Official Report.

Mr. Day: Are the figures increasing, and does that not prove that these Acts are making it more difficult for the trade to continue?

Mr. Stanley: I think they are decreasing, so the second part of the Supplementary does not arise.

Following is the information:

negotiate a comprehensive arrangement regarding outstanding debts as soon as circumstances permit.

FOREIGN BULBS (DUTIES, NORTHERN IRELAND).

Mr. Adamson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that bulbs from Holland may be imported into Eire free of duty and that cut flowers from these bulbs may then be imported free of duty from Eire into Northern Ireland, whereas Dutch bulbs imported into Northern Ireland and cut flowers imported into Eire from Northern Ireland are subject to duties; that the continuance of these conditions is likely to increase unemployment in Northern Ireland; and whether he will take action with a view to removing the Northern


Ireland duties so that bulbs of foreign origin may be imported into that country on the same terms as into Eire?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. Any question of the removal of the duty imposed on bulbs imported into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a matter for consideration, in the first instance, by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. Adamson: Does that mean that representations can be made to the committee, seeing that they can do nothing with the Northern Ireland Government?

Mr. Stanley: If the object is to remove existing duties on bulbs coming into this country and Northern Ireland, application can be made to the Import Duties Advisory Committee to have them removed.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: By whom?

Mr. Stanley: By any party with an interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

LIGHTING (FORECASTLES).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that dirty conditions are frequently found in forecastles in which the lighting is deficient, and especially in those lit by oil lamps; and whether any action is taken to improve the lighting in forecastles in which in sanitary conditions have to be remedied?

Mr. Stanley: If the lighting of the crew's accommodation on any ship was, in the opinion of a Board of Trade surveyor, inadequate, he would take steps to secure improvement.

Mr. Smith: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that oil lighting is inadequate in these days, and, if so, will he tell us how many ships are so lighted and what action he proposes to take to remedy that state of affairs?

Mr. Stanley: I could not say the number of ships, but, with regard to old ships, oil lighting is not considered unacceptable. It would be unreasonable and impracticable to require other methods of lighting.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman make comparisons as to health, and is he not aware that insanitary conditions are always located where they have this oil-lighting, and will he take some steps to deal with the matter?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

CREWS' ACCOMMODATION.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the large number of defects in crews' accommodation which arise through lack of care and sanitary supervision; and whether any action is being taken by his Department, apart from the issue of the new instructions as to the survey of masters' and crews' spaces, to promote a greater interest in and knowledge of hygiene in crews' accommodation?

Mr. Stanley: The question of promoting interest in, and knowledge of, hygiene in crews' accommodation is one for the owners, officers and crews. As the hon. Member is aware, the Shipping Federation and the National Union of Seamen set up a joint committee last year to consider methods of improving the standard of cleanliness and comfort in crews' quarters.

Mr. Smith: Has the committee yet issued any report?

Mr. Stanley: I understand not.

Mr. Kirby: When is the Department of the right hon. Gentleman going to take an interest in this matter?

Mr. Stanley: That is a most unfair imputation, because for some time now the Board of Trade has taken a most active interest in the matter and, as a matter of fact, the formation of the joint committee to which I referred in my answer was the result of suggestions made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Kirby: When may we expect any result from the working of this committee?

Mr. Stanley: It is clear that this question must depend to a large extent upon action taken by the captains, officers and crews of the ships themselves, and it is to that end that this committee has been set up.

Mr. Smith: Is it not a condition precedent that the ship when originally built should be healthily built, and not as now? They never were constructed so that they could be kept healthy.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member, no doubt, knows the tribute which has been paid by the National Union of Seamen to the new regulations that have been laid down, as a tremendous advance.

Mr. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that thousands of the defects in crews' accommodation reported by port medical officers year by year come under the heading of dirty and verminous conditions, and other conditions prejudicial to health; and whether he will cause a report to be prepared on the number and nature of these nuisances, so that the extent of the problem may be revealed?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): Port health authorities have been requested to give special attention to cleanliness and tidiness in crews' accommodation, and port medical officers of health are required to state in their annual reports the number of defects in crews' quarters of the kind to which the hon. Member refers which have been reported during the "ear. The information supplied by the medical officers of health at present does not enable me to state the number and nature of these nuisances separately, but my right hon. Friend is considering whether it would be practicable to revise Table J so as to give further information of the kind which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Smith: Will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake that when reports are made at British ports the ships shall be subject to a survey?

Mr. Bernays: I should like notice of that question.

Viscountess Astor: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter is causing grave concern among all sections, and will he take some steps to deal with it?

CROSBY LIGHTSHIP.

Mr. Logan: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that during a gale last Wednesday, the Crosby lightship, which guides shipping into the Mersey,

broke adrift from its moorings, and drifted for more than half a mile before it was anchored near Formby; and whether he will have inquiry made into the matter with a view to ensuring that all possible precautions will be taken against the recurrence of such an incident, having regard to the safety of the lightship's crew, and the protection of shipping?

Mr. Stanley: I am informed that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have held an inquiry. The breaking adrift of the Crosby light vessel in the strong westerly gale of 8th March was due to the working out of the locking pin in the nut of the swivel pin in the chain cable which moored the vessel; this has never been known to happen before in connection with any of their lightships. Additional precautions are being taken to prevent a recurrence of such an accident.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this lightship has no motive power of its own, and that the men on board were powerless; and is he taking any action, in view of the possibility of further accident, to see that the vessel has proper motive power?

Mr. Stanley: That is quite a different point. The action taken is to see that this particular breaking loose does not recur.

Mr. Logan: I understand that inquiries have been made and that an investigation has taken place, and I want to know what precautionary measures are being taken in order, in the event of an accident occurring again, as it very well may, to protect the seamen who have to manage the vessel.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member will realise that it is not under the authority of the Board of Trade. It is indirectly under the control of Trinity House, and I will certainly make inquiries of them as to the point he has raised.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Surely the Board of Trade must accept responsibility for the fixing of mooring swivels? If a mooring swivel fails, it endangers not only the ship but the lives of the crew in the ship. Will the right hon. Gentleman take some action to see that any defect is remedied?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think that at Question Time I could explain the exact relationship of my Department to the


various lighthouse commissioners, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is really confined to passing their annual budgets. I will certainly take this matter up with them.

Mr. Logan: May I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that this lightship is a guide to the western ocean, and that, if it is not there, there is likely to be danger to the Port of Liverpool?

UNION JACK.

Sir Robert Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state whether a decision has been reached with regard to the desirability of permitting British mercantile marine vessels to fly the Union Jack?

Mr. Stanley: No decision has yet been reached.

Mr. Kirby: When are we going to ensure that none but British seamen go on British ships?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Lawson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state when the report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Population will be published?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am informed that the Royal Commission are now considering their report, but I am afraid it is not yet possible to say when it will be completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR RISKS (COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he hopes to introduce the Bill to deal with war risk insurance, having regard to the decline in the building industry, which is largely attributed to the uncertainty in connection with war risk insurance?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, South-West (Sir G. Mitcheson).

Sir John Mellor: In view of the Financial Secretary's statement yesterday that legislation would not be necessary to give effect to the Government's proposals,

would the Chancellor of the Exchequer be prepared to amplify the statement of 31st January in greater detail so far as it relates to the building industry?

Sir J. Simon: I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will communicate with me if he thinks there is a gap, but the statement was very carefully prepared.

Colonel Nathan: In view of the wide interests involved and the complexity of the subject, will the right hon. Gentleman give ample time between the publication of the Bill and the Second Reading?

Mr. H. G. Williams: In view of the very grave anxiety which is causing considerable unemployment in the building trade, owing to the uncertainty which exists, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a further statement?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think, myself, that the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers are to be attributed solely to this difficulty. I will consider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING SOCIETIES (GOVERNMENT BILL).

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state when the Government propose to introduce the Bill to amend the law relating to building societies?

Sir J. Simon: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply made to the hon. Member by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary on 28th February.

Miss Wilkinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is very considerable anxiety among the buyers of this small property, in view of the situation in which the matter was left by the recent case; and, if the Government cannot make up their mind about their own Bill, could I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would be prepared to give support to the other Bill which is before the House?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think it is a question of difficulty in making up one's mind. The subject is complicated, and involves many considerations in addition to those with which the hon. Lady's Bill deals; but no time is being lost, and I hope that the Bill will be ready very shortly indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ending 31st March, 1938, which shows the number of people liable to pay Surtax has increased from 91,392 to 95,750, and that there is also an increase in the number of persons applying for Poor Law relief; and what steps will be taken to make the distribution of wealth more in keeping with the needs of the people?

Sir J. Simon: I would remind the hon. Member of figures which I have quoted on previous occasions and which show, first, that the amount being provided by the taxpayer for social services, estimated at £223 millions in the current year, is considerably greater than the amount so provided under previous Governments; and, secondly, that this year the Surtax payers will be paying, in Income Tax, Surtax and Death Duties, more than sufficient to meet the whole cost of those services.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, among the number who get Poor Law relief, there are some 230,000 old age pensioners; and, in view of that fact and of the increase of 4,000 in the number of Surtax payers, will he not consider in his Financial Statement some method that will lessen the disparity between the two, and grant an increase to the old age pensioners?

Mr. Thorne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that one way by which wealth could be better distributed would be to give an increase of 10s. a week in old age pensions?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: May I ask what is the new theory by which money received from Surtax and Income Tax is said to meet the cost of the social services? Do not Income Tax payers pay for the Army and the Navy?

Sir J. Simon: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the question on the Paper, he will see why the answer was put in that particular form.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

PRESS ADVERTISING.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is

aware of the large sums now being spent by various Departments on Press advertising; and whether he will consider setting up a special body of independent persons to decide upon the principle, amounts, and allocation of such expenditure, and thus release Ministers from the duty of deciding for or against such expenditure in general, or in the case of particular newspapers?

Sir J. Simon: I am aware that there has been a certain increase recently in expenditure on advertising in the Press on the part of Government Departments. As the result of recommendations made by the Select Committee on Estimates in their last report, the question of establishing a special body to advise on the most effective and economical methods of publicity to be followed by Departments is now under active consideration.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to expedite a decision in regard to this matter, especially in view of the fact that it is not fair on some Ministers, and particularly those who depend more on the good will of the Press than on their own abilities for their reputation—[Interruption'].

Miss Wilkinson: Is it a fact that by far the larger portion of the revenue from this advertising goes to papers which support the Government at the present time; and does the right hon. Gentleman think, in view of the Corrupt Practices Act, that that is a desirable state of affairs?

STAFF.

Miss Ward: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the emergency demands made on certain Government Departments, he can give an assurance, on behalf of the Departments, that urgent work is not being delayed owing to shortage of executive and general staff?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): Departments keep constantly in mind the need for adjusting staffs to the requirements of their work. Where necessary, additional staff is appointed as rapidly as circumstances permit. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a distinct limit to the rate at which new personnel can usefully be absorbed, but I can assure her that no effort is spared to deal speedily with urgent work.

Miss Ward: Can I take it that any Government Department which applies for additional staff will receive the necessary Treasury approbation?

Captain Wallace: The hon. Lady is reading more into my answer than I have said.

Miss Ward: Is my right hon. and gal-land Friend aware that that is just what I wanted to know?

Captain Wallace: If the hon. Lady has a particular case in mind and will put down a question, I shall be glad to answer it.

Miss Wilkinson: Is it not a fact that very large amounts of overtime are being worked?

Captain Wallace: That may be so, but you cannot bring a whole lot of new people in. We have to teach them their jobs first.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can assure the House that Income Tax will not be increased this year; and whether His Majesty's Government intend to extend the already agreed borrowing powers in the near future?

Sir J. Simon: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne). The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the previous reply stated that the Budget statement could not be anticipated; and does he not consider it strange that an hon. Member of this House, who was described in the Press as a private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should make a speech containing a public announcement with regard to the Income Tax?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bellenger.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (DOLLAR STABILISATION FUND).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Chinese Dollar Stabilisation Fund is to operate in

similar manner to the Exchange Equalisation Fund; and whether any consultations are to take place with other countries in similar manner to that embodied in the franc-dollar-sterling agreement?

Sir J. Simon: I hope to introduce the necessary Bill to-morrow, and would ask the hon. Member to await its terms and the discussion which will follow.

Mr. Bellenger: Although I am quite prepared to wait, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say that in introducing the Bill he will deal with the special point raised in my question to-day?

Sir J. Simon: I think that some statement will be necessary regarding the way in which it is proposed to administer the fund.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILLIONAIRES (SOURCE OF INCOMES).

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the source of income of the 10 additional millionaires whose income, as stated in the report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year ended 31st March, 1938, exceeded £40,000?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir, this would be entirely contrary to long-established practice.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision? Is he not aware that there are a large number of taxpayers who have not an income of £40,000 who would be interested to know the methods by which these huge incomes are made?

Mr. James Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that they are not coal miners?

Mr. Tinker: Will the right hon. Gentleman not ask these people to give him some of this money, so that we can increase old age pensions?

Oral Answers to Questions — BEACHES AND FORESHORES (SAND, REMOVAL).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that quantities of sand are frequently removed for building purposes from beaches


and foreshores and that this adversely affects the amenities of the coast; and what action he proposes to take to prevent this practice?

Mr. Stanley: The Board of Trade do not permit the removal of sand from Crown foreshore under their management if it is known that this will adversely affect the amenities of the coast, but in cases where the foreshore or beach is privately owned the Board of Trade can intervene to stop the removal of materials only if the operations can be proved to involve serious interference with the public right of navigation or to cause inroads by the sea. If the hon. Member will furnish details of the removals which he has in mind I shall be pleased to make inquiries into the matter.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman really feel that this is a very unwise and unfair way of removing the amenities of this country, and is he also aware that a number of the coastal authorities have expressed considerable dissatisfaction?

Mr. Stanley: As I have said, if the hon. Member will bring to my notice any special instances which he has in mind, I will see whether I can deal with them.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this caused very serious flooding in Norfolk last year, and will he take steps to get further powers?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TANK CORPS (RANGE).

Mr. Richards: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the considerable opposition to the proposed gunnery school in Pembrokeshire, he will consider its removal and establishment elsewhere?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): As was explained in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) on 16th February last, no suitable alternative site can be found.

Mr. Richards: Is it true that the War Office has attempted to find an alternative site?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. In 14 different counties we have examined closely 25 different sites.

Mr. Richards: Why is it that when complaints are made in Wales nothing is done in the matter, and in the case of England it is quite easy to remove them from one place to another?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It depends on the validity of the complaint.

Mr. Richards: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

ANGLO-INDIANS (ENLISTMENT, INDIA).

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any regulations are in existence prohibiting the enlistment in India, for service in the British Army, of Anglo-Indians of good physique and character; and whether he will consider the desirability of encouraging such enlistments, having regard to the creditable military records of such men during the Great War?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the first part of the question is that the regulations at present in force do have the effect suggested, although an Anglo-Indian section of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps has been formed in India, and other expansions are under consideration. The answer to the second part is that I will certainly consider the proposal.

FRENCH PRESIDENT'S VISIT (TERRITORIAL ARMY PARADE).

Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that certain Territorial regiments in London have been selected in parade before the President of the French Republic on 22nd March, which is a Wednesday, he will make an appeal to the employers of the men concerned once again to show their usual generous co operation by giving facilities for the men to attend the parade?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am glad to say that the number of Territorial Army personnel required to parade on 22nd March have been given all the necessary facilities.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: What uniform will they wear? Will it be khaki?

APPLICANTS FOR ENLISTMENT.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War what number of men


applied to enlist in the Army in the county of Essex for the last 12 months or the latest available date; what percentage were rejected on medical grounds; and what was the percentage of the applicants for enlistment rejected on the grounds of defective vision?

Regular Army.


—
Number of applicants for enlistment during 12 months ended 30th September, 1938.
Number (and Percentage) rejected by examining medical officers.
Number (and Percentage) rejected on account of defective vision


London Recruiting Area
…
10,691
1,552 (14.52 per cent.).
367 (3.43 per cent.).


East Anglian Recruiting Area
…
2,338
230 (9.84 per cent.).
33 (1.41 per cent.).


Total
…
13,029
1,782 (13.68 per cent.).
400(3.07 per cent.).

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the recent elimination of certain area pension offices, he will consider reducing from eight hours to six hours the time away from home necessary to qualify for a subsistence allowance?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I am satisfied that there is no ground for the suggested alteration in the conditions of subsistence allowance. The change referred to in regard to the area offices involved is, except in the case of London, no more than a change of name, and in no instance could cause any hardship to pensioners.

Mr. Robinson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether there is any branch of his Department responsible for the general supervision of the welfare of disabled ex-service men; and, if not, whether he will enter into consultation with the Ministries of Health and Labour for the establishment of such a branch?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The welfare of disabled ex-service men is at all times a concern of the Minister of Pensions who has, moreover, the ready support of the local War Pensions Committees and their thousands of voluntary workers. The measures which I have taken in recent years to promote their welfare are, I think, evidence of this. There is no

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I regret that separate figures for the county of Essex are not available. The county of Essex is included in the London and the East Anglian Recruiting Areas, and I will circulate figures relating to these: areas in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

branch of my Department specifically charged with the duty suggested, and I do not consider that any such branch would be practicable, or could be instituted without overlapping functions already otherwise discharged. I am, however, in constant touch with the Ministers of Health and of Labour on matters affecting the health and employment of ex-service men.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Pensions whether any men have failed to make application for age increases in service pensions permissible under the postwar regulations, where the men would benefit by drawing allowances under these regulations rather than the Ministry's regulations?

Mr. Ramsbotham: Such age increases as are payable in the class of case which the hon. Member has in mind are not authorised by Royal Warrant as a definite right but are paid under special authority in cases which are shown to fulfil the required conditions. In the absence of application my Department would not be justified in initiating inquiries to determine whether an increase could be claimed.

Miss Ward: Does my hon. Friend think that all men get their rights under this particular procedure?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I could hardly answer a question of that kind without an inquiry.

Miss Ward: Would it not be possible to find out whether any of them are entitled to these extra allowances?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE AND RUSSIA.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether the official communication sent out by the Foreign Office on 26th September, 1938, with reference to co-operation between Great Britain, France, and Russia, against German aggression, was issued after prior consultation with the Russian Government?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The answer is in the negative. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 3rd October last.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand that an important statement of this kind was made without any consultation with the foreign Government concerned, and is the right hon. Gentleman realty serious in saying that?

Mr. Butler: I have given the hon. Member the correct answer to the question.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that the Government undertook to tell the people of this country what the action of Russia was going to be without consulting the Russian Government?

Mr. Butler: It is difficult to deal with this matter by question and answer, and I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 3rd October.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the apprehension existing concerning the imminent possibility of further alterations of the frontiers of Czecho-Slovakia; and what action he is taking in the matter?

The Prime Minister: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement on the Slovak situation which I shall be making after Questions.

Later:

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make in regard to the position in Slovakia.

Mr. H. G. Williams: On a point of Order. When the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) asked Question No. 78 the Prime Minister stated that he proposed to make a statement at the end of Questions, and, in these circumstances, is not the Private Notice question of the Leader of the Opposition out of order, on the ground that it is anticipated by a question already on the Paper?

Mr. Speaker: The question on the Paper asks what action is going to be taken.

The Prime Minister: According to information received from His Majesty's Minister at Prague, the situation still remains outwardly calm in Bratislava, although there have been a number of further clashes with members of the German minority in other parts of Czechoslovakia. Dr. Tiso, the former Slovak Premier, accompanied by Herr Karmasin, the leader of the German minority in Slovakia, flew to Berlin yesterday at the invitation of the German Government and Dr. Tiso was received by Herr Hitler. I have, however, no information as to the nature of the discussions which took place. An official communiqué published in Prague this morning announced that the Slovak Diet had been summoned by the President of the Republic to meet at Bratislava at 10 a.m. to-day. According to the communiqué this action was taken by the President at the request of the new Slovak Premier, Dr. Sidor, a similar request having been made by Dr. Tiso. Dr. Tiso returned to Bratislava to-day to take part in the session.
I have not yet received official confirmation of the most recent Press reports. These are that the Czecho-Slovak Government has resigned, that the independence of Slovakia was proclaimed early this afternoon at the conclusion of the session of the Diet, and that a Government under Dr. Tiso had been constituted.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what action His Majesty's Government have taken, in view of the guarantee given with regard to the territorial integrity of Czecho-Slovakia, to consult with the other States, guarantors


of that agreement, and with the Government of Czecho-Slovakia, in the light of the present situation?

The Prime Minister: The question of any action has not yet arisen.

Mr. Attlee: Is it not clear that influences are being brought to bear to separate Slovakia from the rest of Czecho-Slovakia, and are not the Government bound by their guarantee under the Munich Agreement to have a very close interest in anything which concerns the integrity of the remainder of the Czechoslovak State?

The Prime Minister: Without full information, I should not like to express an opinion upon the first point which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Assuming it is be true, that would not be a ground for bringing into force the guarantee.

Sir A. Sinclair: Do His Majesty's Government still regard themselves under a moral obligation in regard to the guarantee?

The Prime Minister: The position has not undergone any change.

Mr. Benn: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the position of the guaranteed loan in view of the break up of Czecho-Slovakia; and who is going to pay back the £6,000,000 which he issued without Parliamentary authority?

Mr. Attlee: Does the Prime Minister say that the Government are merely awaiting for a fait accompli, and have they taken any steps to have any consultation with the representatives of the Czecho-Slovak Government or with the French Government or any other guarantor, seeing that there are rumours and implications, which can hardly be disregarded altogether, of a possible break up of Czecho-Slovakia, which this country has guaranteed?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we should do. I might remind him that the proposed guarantee is one against unprovoked aggression on Czecho-Slovakia. No such aggression has yet taken place.

Mr. Attlee: Are we to take any steps at all, or are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that this

Government is wholly disinterested now in the fate of Czecho-Slovakia?

The Prime Minister: That would be an altogether unwarranted assumption.

Miss Wilkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is unprovoked aggression if a friendly State sends propagandists into another country in order to provoke secession?

The Prime Minister: rose—

Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order. On a matter of this importance, when the Prime Minister rises to answer a perfectly legitimate supplementary question, is it to be ruled out of order by your rising, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I am the judge as to whether a question is in order or not.

Miss Wilkinson: May I register my emphatic protest?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE AND WIDOW PENSIONERS (LIVERPOOL).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of old age and widow's pensions, respectively, in the city of Liverpool, who seek public assistance in order to augment their pension incomes?

Mr. Bernays: On 1st January, 1939, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 7,830 old age pensioners and 2,662 widow pensioners in the city of Liverpool in receipt of poor relief.

Mr. Kirby: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is scandalous that old age pensioners and widows should have to receive public assistance; and may I ask when we may expect from the Government some sympathetic consideration in respect of old age and widows' pensions?

Mr. Bernays: I cannot add to the answer which I have already given.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURNING PIT HEAPS.

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the limestone dust method of controlling spoil heap fires, as described in the Transactions of the Institution of Mining Engineers, volume 93, part III,


page 261, and referred to in the 74th Annual Report on Alkali Works; and whether this is considered generally satisfactory?

Mr. Bernays: My inspectors are familiar with this method and recommend it in suitable cases. It is an application of one of the general principles, that of blanketing with inert material, referred to on page 5 of the chief inspector's 72nd report. I shall send my hon. Friend a copy of the forthcoming report (75th) in which more reference will be made to this and other methods.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

Mr. T. Williams: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Government would arrange that the new White Paper which will contain various British statements on the Balfour Declaration shall also include the terms of the telegram despatched in 1917 by the British Foreign Office to His Majesty's then Ambassador in Russia, Sir George Buchanan, wherein, among other things, it was declared that His Majesty's Government had decided to establish a Jewish State in Palestine.

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend is giving consideration to this proposal.

Mr. Williams: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if certain papers referring to the Balfour Declaration are to be published in the form of a White Paper, it would not be in the interests of all parties in this House and outside that all similar documents should be published?

Mr. Butler: I appreciate the force of the hon. Member's point, and my right hon. Friend will give this matter consideration.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Will he also publish the Allenby Report?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take arising out of the proposed suspension of the Eleven O'clock Rule?

The Prime Minister: It is proposed to suspend the Eleven O'clock Rule in order to obtain the Report stages of the Army and Air Estimates. We also hope that there will be an opportunity to dispose of the Third Order, being the Report stages of the Supplementary Estimates for the Diplomatic and Consular Services and the Foreign Office, which have already been debated in Committee.

Mr. Attlee: With regard to the Supplementary Estimate for the Diplomatic and Consular Services, may we have an assurance that it will not be entered upon at a late hour, as there are important questions that arise, particularly in view of the present international situation?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate that point, and I think I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will not enter upon that Supplementary Estimate at a late hour.
Motion made, and Question put,
That this day notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, the Reports of Army Supplementary Estimates, 1938; of Army (Royal Ordnance Factories) Supplementary Estimate, 1938; of Air Supplementary Estimates, 1938; and the Report [7th March] of Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimate, 1938, may be considered, and that the Proceedings of the Reports of Supply of 8th, 9th and 7th March may be taken after Eleven of the clock, and be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." —[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 112

Division No. 65.]
AYES.
[3.54 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Blair, Sir R.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bossom, A. C.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Albery, Sir Irving
Boulton, W. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Apsley, Lord
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Channon, H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Christie, J. A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Bull, B. B.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.


Balniel, Lord
Bullock, Capt. M.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Burton, Col. H. W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'n)
Butcher, H. W.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Colman, N. C. D.


Bernays, R. H.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John




Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hunloke, H. P.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'str S. G'gs)
Hunter, T.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Cox, H. B. Trevor
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Rowlands, G.


Critchley, A.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Salmon, Sir I.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Salt, E. W.


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Kimball, L.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandys, E. D.


De Chair, S. S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


De la Bère, R.
Lancaster, Captain C. G.
Scott, Lord William


Denville, Alfred
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lewis, O.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Dodd, J. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw. Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Donner, P. W.
Lipson, D. L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lyons, A. M.
Shuts, Colonel Sir J. J.


Duggan, H. J.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Duncan, J. A. L.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Dunglass, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Eastwood, J. F.
McKie, J. H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Eckersley, P. T.
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Magnay, T.
Snadden, W. McN.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mander, G. le M.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Markham, S. F.
Spens, W. P.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Marsden, Commander A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Errington, E.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Storey, S.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Evens, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Medlicott, F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fleming, E. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Foot, D. M.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sutcliffe, H.


Fox, Sir G. W. G
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Tate, Mavis C.


Furness, S. N.
Morris Jones, Sir Henry
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Thomas, J. P. L.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Munro, P.
Touche, G. C.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Train, Sir J.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Goldie, N. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Turton, R. H.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Granville, E. L
Owen, Major G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Peaks, O.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Peat, C. U.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Grimston, R. V.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hambro, A. V.
Petherick, M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Hammersley, S. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Hannah, I. C.
Pilkington, R.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
White, H. Graham


Harbord, A.
Porritt, R. W.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Harvey, Sir G.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ramsbotham, H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rankin, Sir R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Hopburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
York, C.


Herbert, Major it. A. (Monmouth)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Higgs, W. F.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)



Holdsworth, H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Captain Hope and Captain Dugdale.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)



Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Batey, J.
Buchanan, G.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Cape, T.


Adamson, W. M.
Bellenger, F. J.
Chater, D.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Cluse, W. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Benson, G.
Cocks, F. S.


Banfield, J. W.
Bevan, A.
Cove, W. G.


Barr, J.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Daggar, G.




Dalton, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Sanders, W. S.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lathan, G.
Sexton, T. M.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lawson, J. J.
Shinwell, E.


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Dobbin, W.
Lee, F.
Simpson, F. B.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leonard, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, T, (Normanton)


Gardner, B. W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Garro Jones, G. M.
McGhee, H. G.
Stephen, C.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
MacNeill Weir, L.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Marklew, E.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Grenfell, D. R.
Marshall, F.
Thorne, W.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mathers, G.
Thurtle, E.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Maxton, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Messer, p.
Viant, S. P.


Hardie, Agnes
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Walkden, A. G.


Hayday, A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walker, J.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Watkins, F. C.


Henderson, J, (Ardwick)
Paling, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parker, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parkinson, J. A.
Welsh, J. C.


Hopkin, D.
Pearson, A.
Westwood, J.


Jagger, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Poole, C. C.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Price, M. P.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


John, W.
Pritt, D. N.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Jonas, A. C. (Shipley)
Ridley, G.



Kirby, B. V.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves


Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, An Act to amend Section six of the Official Secrets Act, 1920." [Official Secrets Bill [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [8th March.]

Resolutions reported:

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1939.

VOTE A. NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 185,700, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, exclusive of India and Burma, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

VOTE I. PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,943,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Army, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

VOTE 2. TERRITORIAL ARMY AND RESERVE FORCES.

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,022,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray he Expense of the Army Reserve (to a number not exceeding 144,000, all ranks), Supplementary Reserve (to a number not exceeding 67,816, all ranks), Territorial Army (to a number not exceeding 246,379, all ranks), Officers Training Corps, and Colonial Militia, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

VOTE 10. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,540,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Lands, including military and civilian staff and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

VOTE II. MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES.

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,432 , be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

VOTE 13. HALF-PAY, RETIRED PAY, AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR OFFICERS.

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,745,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

VOTE 14. PENSIONS AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR WARRANT OFFICERS, NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, MEN AND OTHERS.

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,833,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the

Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea; of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

VOTE 15. CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION AND GRATUITIES.

8. "That a sum, not exceeding £288,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation and other Non-Effective Annual Allowances, Additional Allowances and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

ARMY (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES) ESTIMATE, 1939.

Army (Royal Ordnance Factoroes).

9. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,164,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940, for the Expense of the Royal Ordnance Factories, the Cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, etc."

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1938.

VOTE A. ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

10. "That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 58,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, exclusive of India and Burma, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939."

ARMY SUPPLEMENT AY ESTIMATE, 1938.

11. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year."

SCHEDULE.


—
Sums not Exceeding



Supply Grants.
Appropriations in aid.


Vote.
£
£


1.
pay,&amp;c., of the Army.
Cr.659,000
1,513,000


2.
Territorial army (to an additional number not exceeding 28,293) and reserve forces.
356,000
*—18,000


3.
Medical services
184,000
8,000


5.
Quartering and movements.
630,000
*—256,000


6.
Supplies, road transport and remounts.
486,000
6,000


7.
Clothing
882,000
100,000


8.
General stores
267,000
41,000


9.
Warlike stores
Cr. 3,892,000
4,412,000

—
sums not exceeding



supply grants.
appropriations in aid.


Vote.
£
£


10.
Works,building and lands
1,922,100
2,224,900


11.
Miscellaneous effective services.
Cr.265,000
—


12.
War office
43,000
—


13.
Half-pay, retired pay and other n 0 n - effective charges for officers.
9,000
*—21,000


14.
Pensions and other non-effective charges for warrant officers, non-commission e d officers, men and others.
37,000
15,000


Total, Army (Supplementary),1938.£
100
8,024,900


*Deficite

ARMY (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES) SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1938.

12. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge (reduced by a sum, not exceeding £141,960, to be transferred from the Supplies Suspense Account), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure beyond the sum already granted for the Service of the Royal Ordnance Factories."

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I have no doubt that by far the most important question that is at present to the fore in the military-sphere is the progress of the conversations between our Government and the Government of France. In his Estimates speech last week the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said that the conversations up to the present had not led to any final commitments, but it is fairly evident that when a crisis occurs there will be no time for prolonged discussion and the deliberations which are taking place now, I suppose almost certainly, will determine our final policy at that time. I imagine that when we speak of co-operation with France the French Government take a very simple

view of the matter. To them co-operation with France means the presence of British troops on the soil of France. That is why I wish to reinforce the warnings that my hon. Friends wish to give that those who speak for us should insist upon our right to elasticity, and should insist that there are other areas of possible conflict, especially in North Western Europe, where very vital British interests are concerned, where, even if we do send troops abroad, the need for assistance would be more urgent than anywhere else.
The special danger is this: When these discussions are taking place, however vital interests elsewhere may be, there is an assumption, perhaps a certainty, that the vital interests of those who are present at the discussions will be more forcibly stated than the interests of those who are not represented. In this case there are vital interests, very important to us, which are undoubtedly in danger, and I think it should be the duty of the British representatives to point out that those interests are British interests, and if they are British interests they are in the long run the interests of France. I have noticed in the last few months a series of articles in one newspaper after another about the position in Scandinavia, Belgium, Holland and the whole of that area of Europe—very disturbing articles indeed, not only about their position but about their environment. These articles are summarised in an article in the "Times" of 7th March, headed "The Shadow of the Swastika." The "Times" pointed out, with regard to the Scandinavian countries:
It is widely believed that lists have been compiled by German agents of every independent business man in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, with full details of income, capital, family circumstances, hobbies, political sympathies and Jewish connections, if any. Pressure has been brought to bear upon local business men to discharge Jewish employés.
And this appears to be very significant.
The Government sought to intervene.
Professor Koht, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, and Mr. Sandier, the Swedish, have urged their business men to resist.
The article goes on:
All this begets a feeling that there is yet no limit in sight to Nazi German demands, political or economic; that these demands may descend on any country at any time.
Then there are the other countries. In Belgium we know of the continuous activity in strengthening the Maginot Line,


and in Holland the anxiety is so great that I notice the Prime Minister has asked the people to remain calm. Let me revert to Denmark. I would call attention to the fact that Denmark has a Sudetenland, and although only 25 per cent. of the inhabitants of North Schleswig are German, nevertheless the threats against Denmark have been more menacing than those which were directed against Czecho-Slovakia just before the invasion began. I have here some quotations from the Nazi party Congress in the German part of Schleswig:
The Swastika up to the Kongeaa.
The principal duty of all party members is to conquer North Schleswig for Nazism, as we have done in Austria in spite of all opposition and trickery. We do not discuss frontiers; we conquer them with the force of our nation.
So that I say that there are other countries whose interests are in danger, countries of great importance to us, and that it is the duty of our representatives to regard the care of those countries as their responsibility because those countries are not present at the discussions to which I have referred. From the very nature of the circumstances they cannot be present and yet these discussions are concerned with subjects which will undoubtely determine their fate.
I would like to revert to the Debate that took place last week on an Amendment with regard to the general role of the British Army as compared with the role of other elements in warfare, partly because some of my hon. Friends behind me wish it to be the topic of discussion and partly because from such information as I have it is clear that that kind of conception is behind any negotiations, say, with the French Government, and my information is that as a matter of fact the perspective which French soldiers take upon this topic of the general role of the British Army is not the perspective generally prevailing in this country. I will explain why I say that.
The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office closed the Debate last week with a speech which I thought to be of great importance. I am sorry that he spoke rather late, but it was a speech which was a very valuable statement indeed of what I take to be the general view in the Department which he represents. The central feature of his

statement was the emphasis, in modern land warfare, on the great advantage which defence is assuming over attack, an advantage so great that it is now considered as in the ratio of three to one. If that is so, if there has been this change in the situation since the last War, it obviously makes an enormous difference to the prospect of the part we may be called upon to play in France. France has the Maginot Line, the most elaborate defence the world has ever seen. If she is not satisfied she can build more. But there has never been anything like it before, and the general view I believe is that the frontiers are now so powerful that they are almost impregnable except at a cost too much to contemplate. In the Debate last week I said that in the crisis of last September it was generally held that the Siegfried Line, which must be a poor defence compared with the Magniot Line, as it has taken only a few months to build compared with years in the case of the Maginot Line, was almost impregnable.
That leads me to the fact which, I think, should dominate our discussion, and that is that it is quite possible in warfare the two frontiers may be actually locked, and it will not be possible to carry through successful attacks. If that is so, it leads one to conclusions of immense importance, and one of them is this. No war is quite like the last, and it may be that in the next war it will be found that mere land forces will not be able to force a decision. The discussions on the Air Estimates made it clear that if you have air forces of anything like equal strength on the two sides then air forces cannot force a decision. You are, therefore, left with the Navy as your final instrument, with the power of production and finance which can be accumulated behind the shield which the Navy presents. All this was obviously true until the Munich Agreement, because it is clear that under these conditions any conflict of a long duration would be a conflict of economic resources, and that means that the country which has command of the immeasurable raw materials required would have a great advantage in the end. That happens to be the direction in which we have the advantage, and in which Germany of all nations is most singularly weak. Herr Goebbels has complained that of the 18 main raw materials required for war Germany produces only two in


her own territories, except by synthetic processes—coal and potash. Therefore, if conflict had broken out in September and the war had been anything but a short one, I do not see how the German Government could have held out for a great many months.
I would like to consider the effect of all this on the Munich Agreement. It was an immense diplomatic victory for Germany. It altered the whole of her outlook, and opened out to her all the potential raw materials of South-Eastern Europe and a part of Russia. I do not believe, however, that this has turned the scale for one or two reasons. The countries in South-Eastern Europe are showing themselves capable of a great deal of resistance, and it is not clear that they are going to be the milch cows for another German war. They may have to be conquered. But there is another fact which has been revealed by the circumstances which accompanied Dr. Schacht's resignation. I understand that although South-Eastern Europe has these raw materials, they are at present buried in the soil; they are not developed. It would require immense masses of capital and a long time before they could be developed and used in the enormous quantities which would be required by Germany in time of war. To develop them would need a vast amount of capital, and one thing which was clear in Dr. Schacht's resignation was that he told the German Government they were expending the maximum capital at present on German rearmament, and that they could not spend any more capital on rearmament without gravely imperilling the whole German economic system. If Dr. Schacht is right, it is clear that Germany has not got great quantities of surplus capital to develop the raw materials of South-Eastern Europe. Therefore, I come back to the original position, that the great advantage of this country, which it would be foolish to sacrifice for anything else, is that with the Navy we can prevent Germany getting raw materials from outside, and that we ourselves can draw them from the whole world provided we maintain the financial strength to bring them to our shores.
That appears to me to be the perspective of the subject, and I think it is much better to concentrate on that which will turn the scale, and not to give way to any demands which would sacrifice

this advantage. I emphasise this for this reason. From what I hear, French soldiers do not attach the same importance to the part played by the Navy as we do. That is a most profound difference in perspective. The military writer "Scrutator," whom most people know, pointed out this fact in the "Sunday Times" last Sunday. It is true now, and it was true during the discussions which preceded the War, in 1914—the French paid no attention to the British Navy. I have here the life and diaries of Sir Henry Wilson. He was seeing the French continually in 1913 before the War. He saw Generals Castelnau, Joffre, and Foch. There had been some articles in the "Times" pointing out the important part which might be played by the British Navy, and the view which these French Generals took, according to Sir Henry Wilson, was that Generals Castelnau and Joffre did pot value the British Navy "at one bayonet" and later on he says that General Foch was exactly of the same opinion.
That was the prevailing view before the last War after all the experience of the years before, and I am not surprised to be told that it is the prevailing view today in spite of what happened 18 years ago. For that reason I think it is necessary that we should be perfectly frank in these discussions, and not be pushed off by the purely military view of this subject. There is one further example I may quote from the article in the "Times" to illustrate my point. There is a moving speech by the Minister of Defence for Sweden. One does not often bring Sweden into these discussions, but it will illustrate how great the danger is. He said:
Our blood turns cold at the thought that our children will be compelled to speak a foreign tongue and that we ourselves may-have to die so that the Swedish people may-live.
Why is that? It is because, in spite of Munich, Germany has no iron ore at her disposal unless she obtains it from Sweden. The only other place from which she can get it is the Ural Mountains, and consequently Sweden is in great danger. Therefore, if British troops are to be used, it will be far better to use them for key positions than to send them anywhere else.
Let me put two questions to the Secretary of State for War about the


Territorials. They are now to be part of the same scheme as the Regular Army. The Regular Army will be equipped with all modern weapons by the end of the next financial year. I should like to ask whether the Territorials will be similarly equipped, and whether the right hon. Gentleman can give any indication when they will be ready to support the Regulars —after a reasonable interval of time, say, six months? I desire to deal with only one other subject, but it is one which, I think, is of great importance, and should be brought to the attention of the House now. It is the position of the Expeditionary Force. Under the conditions which now exist, the Expeditionary Force has no Air Arm of its own at all. The problem has been solved as regards the Navy, but it has been left untouched as regards the Army. The Army cannot go abroad unless there are fighter squadrons with it to protect the Army co-operation squadrons.
This is a very terrible dilemma, because those very fighter squadrons are the squadrons that will be required for home defence. I can imagine the feelings of a city which is being bombed if the fighter squadrons are taken away. On the other hand, I can imagine the dismay of the country as a whole if, because there are not fighter squadrons to go abroad, a vital point is being lost while the Army remains unoccupied at home. This will be a very terrible decision to take, and at present, undoubtedly, the presumption will be against the Army. That happened last time, and for that reason a few years ago I made the suggestion, which I thought was a good one, that as soon as possible the Army should be provided with a number of fighter squadrons to correspond with the number of Army cooperation squadrons. That suggestion was taken up, and I have not followed it for two or three years, because I thought something would happen, but up to the present nothing has happened. However, in the last War, when the decision had to be made, the presumption was all against the Army.
There is an account of this subject in Mr. Spaight's "Air Power in the Next War," a book of great authority which Lord Trenchard said we all ought to read, and so I turn to see what Mr. Spaight has to say about that problem and about what happened in the last war. He points

out that all the air attacks in the last war killed in this country only 1,500 people. That is very terrible, but it is only about a quarter of what the motor cars kill in one year, and in order to protect the country against that, over 36 squadrons of aeroplanes were kept in this country during the most vital period and when we were nearly being driven from our superiority in the air owing to the new German Albatros fighter. Fighter squadrons were not sent abroad, but were kept at home, and at certain of the most vital periods squadrons were actually taken away from the warfare in France and sent home to protect London. There is a quotation in this book from Group Captain Slessor:
The activities of these few German bombers, miles away from the scene of the battle on the ground, had an effect upon the air situation over the decisive front which, though incalculable, must have been enormous; at least they prevented us from obtaining a degree of air superiority that in all probability would have materially shortened the war.
That is why I made the suggestion to which I have referred, some two or three years ago, and I thought some steps were being taken in regard to it, but there was a paper read last week or the week before at the Royal United Service Institution by Group Captain A. J. Capel, who discussed this very topic at great length, and he pointed out that no decision had been taken at all and that when the time came it would be left to the Cabinet. That means that the subject has not been dealt with. I have not actually criticised the arrangement by which the proportion of fighters was to be increased. I think one of the purposes to which it might be put is that the Army should have a proportion of these machines, so that there would be elasticity, but the rule which regulates the Army co-operation squadrons should be observed, and they should only be diverted away from the Army by the consent of the Army Council.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House, in conclusion, one broad result which comes more and more powerfully to my mind in all these defence Debates. I find that when we discuss in this House great problems of this kind affecting one Department by itself, something is effected. It may take a year or two years, but something begins to happen. But when we discuss great


problems where two or three Departments are concerned, or where wider problems, such as the role of any of the Services, are concerned, I complain once more, as I did last year, that I do not think our discussions are any good; they are not fruitful; Ministers give us practically no guidance; and if you take up a subject and drop it for two or three years, and then come back again to it, you find that meanwhile nothing has happened. This is a very great gap in our whole system. We have discussed a Ministry of Supply, and a Ministry of Defence, and we have established a Ministry for the Co-ordination of Defence, but I come back to the belief that we need a collective brain somewhere, which we have not at present got, for topics of this wider character. I am sure that we shall repeat our last experience unless we do this, because if we do not have that collective brain when the time of trial comes, the problems of war will again be solved by throwing men into mass slaughter, because there is no mechanism as yet for thinking these problems out, as far as they can be thought out, before the men take the field.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: If I do not follow the right hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who spoke for the Opposition, into the very wide field which he has traversed, and which at points he has illuminated, it is because I hope that later on in the Session we shall have it discussed in a Debate on the Committee of Imperial Defence, or on the salary of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I presume that that is so. I address myself directly to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It always has been so, but if there is not to be such a Debate—

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I do not wish to express an opinion on it. These things are generally arranged through the usual channels.

Mr. Churchill: On the contrary, I remember three or four occasions when it has been asked in ordinary debate, by ordinary Members, whether there would be an opportunity of debating the three arms combined, on the Committee of Imperial Defence Vote, and I remember that an affirmative answer has nearly always been given in such cases.

The Prime Minister: Because it has already been settled.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman would not, I am sure, wish to confine all requests made to him to the usual channels. Members in the House have a perfect right to put questions and to raise points about Votes to be discussed, and I asked, in a passing remark, whether there would not be the usual opportunity given for a general discussion on the three arms combined. At any rate, it is for that reason, because I expect that such an opportunity will be given, that I do not attempt to follow the speaker from the Opposition Front Bench into the very interesting survey which he has made. But there is one point to which I will certainly refer. He spoke of the number of aeroplane squadrons which in the last War were retained in this country at critical times by the fear of air attack, and the great diminution in our effective air force at the front which was entailed thereby. But that is going to happen in every country and over a far larger sphere than has, I think, been realised. The fact that air attack has spread this vast general alarm throughout the whole area of countries is going to mean that the feature of the next war—and, after all, that is the war that, from a military point of view, we must consider, though certainly the War Office is said to be always preparing for the last war—the feature of the next war will be a very vast diminution in the offensive power at the front, because of the enormous abstraction from the resources of the nations which will be frittered away, or dispersed, or in many cases wasted, over a vast area of home defence, against this attack from the sky.
When you recollect that Germany probably has 7,000 anti-aircraft guns, with gunners and batteries, all standing in their places to-day, and that in the late War those 7,000 guns, probably as many as went into action at the beginning of the War, would all have been at the fighting front, it is not only this country and the Air Arm which will be subjected to continual diminution, drain, pulling back from the front, and dispersal, but all countries and all arms; and I entirely agree that you may very easily reach static conditions at the fortified fighting line, and that other stresses and other strains will come into play, out of which the decision of the great struggle may arise. I did not intend to be drawn far


into that particular topic, but only to refer to it, as it seemed to me quite a suggestive point that the right hon. Gentleman brought forward.
I would like to compliment the Secretary of State for War upon his speech the other day. It was a very excellent and carefully considered statement, and I am very much in favour of carefully considered statements, however well they are prepared. The better they are prepared, the greater the advantage to the House, because it is far more desirable that we should receive a statement which is the result of weeks of careful thought, although it is clearly in an advanced state of preparation before it is delivered— in fact, I think this one was in print before it was delivered—than that we should be treated to a discourse which, though it may have superior oratorical merits, does not carry with it anything like the same measure of information and of thought to the House. I think my right hon. Friend made a very admirable speech, which will bear careful scrutiny and study in future years and will be looked upon as one of the definite pronouncements on behalf of the War Office upon military policy.
There are a few points, and very few, to which I venture to draw attention this afternoon. They are all concerned purely with the Army; they do not touch any of these other, wider topics. First of all, I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State, and His Majesty's Government, and the Prime Minister—congratulate them all—upon the decision to which they have come to arm the Territorial Force with the same weapons and equipment and on the same scale as the Regular Army. We may recall a shocking sentence in the White Paper of March, 1936, the same month three years ago, in which it was stated:
For the present, owing to the demands upon the capacity of industrial output which must necessarily be made in the first instance by the Regular Army, it is not possible simultaneously to recondition the Territorial Army.
Immediately, I asked why. These two Forces put together, I said, are only 250,000 men, and we are told that our vast, adaptable British industry would not be capable of providing for these two Forces simultaneously. I called it a very bad sentence, one which ought never to

have appeared, and an altogether wrong decision of policy. 'It seemed such a monstrous thing that we should appeal to the youth of our country to come forward and join the Territorial Army—just a few men, a couple of hundred thousand out of all the manhood of the nation—to come forward and take on this extreme obligation of serving anywhere at any time should the emergency occur, perhaps not even in their own units; to come forward and undertake that devoted sacrifice the like of which has been hardly seen in any other sphere of life; and then, when they did that, not even to give them the ordinary weapons which are necessary, and which would put them on equal terms with the contemporary forces they might have to meet. I thought it was a deplorable situation.
I am not blaming my right hon. Friend who was Secretary of State at that time, because I had it out with him in private, and I well know how glad he would have been if the funds and sanctions had been forthcoming which would have enabled that obviously necessary step to be taken. Actually the Minister of a Service Department would always be glad if those provisions were made. I entirely agree with the doctrine that the Minister of a Service Department is under no obligation to resign simply because he does not get this, that or the other thing for which he is asking; any theory that he should do so would make the course of government intolerable. It is only on very grave issues, moral issues or issues affecting the life and safety of the country, that the weapon of resignation should be used. Therefore, in what I say I am not making any aspersions upon my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for War. It was a matter of Cabinet policy, and those who were controlling the policy of the Cabinet in March, 1936, are responsible.
I am not being wise after the event, because I could read arguments which I addressed to the House—I am not going to do so—both in March and November of that year, and in the year following, urging that the equipment of the Territorial Army should be undertaken pari passu with that of the Regular Army. One must regard the decision of policy in that sentence of the White Paper of 1936 as being very short-sighted and altogether wrong, wrong not only from the point of view of judgment, but wrong from the point of view of the spirit in which it was


taken. Of course, my arguments made no difference. It was pointed out at the time that the forces behind the administration were perfectly ready to deny the Territorial Army the weapons which it needed at that time, and to stand by while there was that neglect. When I used these arguments—in vain—a few Members said, "Hear, hear!" but the great bulk of the supporters of the Government merely gaped, and went away. [An Hon. Member: "The Labour party voted against you."] The Conservative party has always, or at any rate for 100 years, had the tradition of endeavouring to sustain the defences of the country and the safety of the country. It is only in recent times that we have reached the position where, whatever the Government decide to do or not to do, there is no means of shifting them by Parliamentary debate or by the pressure of party, and in many cases the arguments are not fairly met. I thought at that time that there was no one in the House who did not think that we ought to undertake the rearmament of the Territorial Army at the same time as the Regular Army; but nothing was done and nothing has been done until now—three years later.
The present Secretary of State for War is more fortunate than his predecessor. He functions at a period when the ruling powers in the Government are, I will not say fully instructed, but more fully instructed upon verities than they were in March, 1936. Now we have this declaration which was made last Wednesday which tells this band of devoted men, who join the Territorial Army, who come forward to our aid, that at any rate they will be given the equipment, weapons, tackle, and tools necessary to enable them to do their job. But how are we to excuse the waste of these three years? Three years have gone. If those orders had been given then, we should now have the original 14 divisions of the Territorial Army, or whatever form they would have taken, equipped with modern weapons, whereas, as is perfectly well known to every General Staff in Europe, a long, painful, critical interval lies between us, before we can attain the position which prudent forethought, nay, right thinking and decent thinking would have secured for us easily by now.
The Government, no doubt, will protest that they never thought in 1936

things would turn out so rough. Well, they were wrong. If that is what they thought, it is clear that they were wrong; and anyone who accepted it from them was misled. But then there were 1937 and 1938, when things were a great deal worse, when successive warnings occurred, when one event after another began to shake the stability of Europe, when a stream of facts flowed in from every quarter showing the immense preparations that were being made elsewhere and the dangerous ambitions that were, nursed. Still the Territorial Army was denied its weapons, still we were told that its equipment could begin only after the equipment of the Regular Army was completed. I believe that on the original programme it was to be 1940 or 1941 before it could even be begun on a large scale.
I quite recognise that the Prime Minister and his colleagues are perfectly safe and will get away with it. They will get away with it without any difficulty, because there are too many in it, Many powerful forces and interests have been responsible for the decision, and the great mass of a great party has endorsed it, and endorsed the neglect. So, undoubtedly, they will escape. What would have been the fate of any other administration that I have ever seen on that Bench, if faced by anything like an equal Parliamentary opposition, would have been the grave censure of Parliament. That the Government will escape. They will face only such censure as the course of events may inflict upon them in the pages of history. No doubt many will say what very bad taste it is for me to mention that fact. They will say that the Territorial Army is now being armed, that I am getting what I asked for, only three years later than it was asked for. Why look a gift horse in the mouth? Why not accept it in the spirit in which it is made? I will endeavour to do so, and I will conclude this section of my remarks by offering my sincere congratulations to His Majesty's Government upon the decision to which they have come in this matter.
I should also like to praise the Government and the Secretary of State for the declaration that they have made that it is our duty to provide 19 Divisions from this country, apart from our Reserves in India and the Middle East, for general


service overseas should the occasion require it. That is a momentous declaration. I have rarely heard anything so important stated in a Service Debate. Anyone can see the explanation. It is the first instalment of the bill for Munich. People say that we are not involved in the affairs of these remote countries, but afterwards it is found that they alter the whole life of the people of this country, their daily habits, their financial position, their trade, everything. This is the first instalment. I wish I could think it was the last instalment of this bill which has come in, but I am afraid that other drafts will be presented month after month and year after year through the greater part of our lifetime. It is a great pity that this statement was not made a year or two years ago. I am not aware that there has been any alteration, except the destruction of Czecho-Slovakia, in the factors at work in the world during these two years. It was clearly visible that a great danger was approaching and that the stronger this country was, the more likely we were to be able to ward it off.
Of course, we shall be told that the public would not have stood it. I think there is something in that. I do not under-rate the effort that would have been required from Ministers if they had made this declaration a year or two years ago. The outcry that would have been directed upon them would have been a very serious one. Yet, when all is said and done, I certainly cannot recall any instance in my lifetime, or in recent times I have read about, when, if Ministers went in faith and confidence to the nation and demanded particular measures, and gave as reasons that the national safety was involved, those measures have not only been voted by Parliament, but even more actively supported by the people at large. Tell me anything for which a Government has asked to defend this country which has been denied. I cannot recall such a case. I remember that before the War there were a great many struggles inside the Government as to the provision that should be made, but the House was overwhelming, divided as it was on party lines, and in the country, fighting as it was for party politics, there was not the slightest hesitation in providing whatever was necessary. And believe me, the Government will have to make more heavy demands upon the country, demands

which now seem to them as difficult as it would have been to have asked for 19 Divisions of the Army. The time will come when they will have to make those demands, but if they will face that as a necessity, the people of this island will submit and endorse those steps which are necessary for their safety and freedom and the triumph of world causes with which they believe the life and honour of this country to be inseparably bound up.
At any rate, a year ago, after Austria was subjugated, there was a temper in the land which would have welcomed such a declaration, and if it had been made on top of the decision to equip the Territorial Army earlier, and at the same time as the Regular Army, with modern weapons, then very likely the whole course of history would have flowed by now into much easier channels, and we should not now be the prey to the gnawing anxieties which afflict every thinking man. The more resolute he is to do his duty in these times, the more these anxieties must crowd upon him, and crowd upon him in the morning and in the night.
I must congratulate the Government again on this, and I do so on the basis, better late than never, provided that it is not too late. But these 19 divisions which are spoken of as an oversea expeditionary force involve a very serious obligation. Other people will count upon those divisions, and even though you may not have made any commitments, here or there, undoubtedly the object of this announcement was that reassurance should be given elsewhere. Other people will count upon the delivery of these divisions, wherever, in any common struggle, a real need may arise, and then you will have to produce those divisions. It is not a question of paper schemes or of a declaration in principle. You have to produce and hold available for general service in the common cause, in a war in which we are defending ourselves against aggression, with Allies, 19 divisions from this country alone, for expeditionary service. That is a tremendous declaration, and it is in no wise diminished by saying that they will go in certain echelons, and so on. That is not what will be regarded elsewhere. What will be looked at abroad is the declaration itself. It will be looked at by your friends, who will count upon it, and by your potential enemies, who will probably take counter-measures as


far as those are in their power. There-tore, I say that it is a most serious obligation.
I wish to ask, then, what steps are being taken to provide these 19 divisions of the Field Force, as it is called, with the necessary equipment? Hitherto, we have not contemplated anything of the kind. Evidently large new installations must be set up for this purpose. It is not only that equipment will have to be made for a force of this size but that plant must be created, in actuality and potentially for the maintenance of such a force in action. The moment a division goes into action it bums up, not only human life but every form of war material at a prodigious rate. I remember in the early days of the War asking Lord Kitchener why he did not send out one or two Territorial divisions—Kitchener Army divisions—to help our struggling, torn front line. He said, "If they get there what are they going to eat? What are they going to consume? I have not got it." What is being done about this in the present instance? I asked the question the other day before I knew this statement was going to be made. What is to be done to provide the great ammunition supply that will be required when large armies are in the field? Has that been settled yet? It certainly does not exist at present. That we know. We have always been assured that all the programmes of artillery and munitions, machine-guns, anti-tank rifles, grenades and the like have been made upon the approved scale, but what is the scale? I put it to the House that the scale has now been vastly increased. It has been increased to the scale of the units that would be employed in the full blaze of a European war.
Again, I ask, what is going to be done about it? The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench mentioned a very pregnant fact in this connection. If we contemplate a field army of 19 divisions—and more if we include Egypt and India—how, he asked, do we propose to provide it with the necessary air force, the military co-operation squadrons, the artillery spotting squadrons, and the fighters to protect it? Certainly all that involves a great new expansion of Air Force activities, and we should like to know in good time from the Government that steps are being taken to deal with this matter, because otherwise

we run the risk of making a potential threat in the shape of 19 divisions, and of having, when the time comes, no effectual means of making it good. Thus, as I say, you would excite the counter-preparations, but find yourself without your own resources when the time came. I should think that the approved scale of the Expeditionary Force has been at least doubled.
I wish to know: Are you now planning and making factories for the production of the supplies necessary to keep such a force in the field? Are you not only making the weapons to give them at the outset, but are you laying down and preparing factories in the country, which, when these divisions are engaged in action —as they will be as soon as they can be prepared, if we are at war—will enable them to have a continuous supply of ammunition? Practically everything such as rifles and equipment, which is put into the hands of troops engaged in war is destroyed before a year is out and sometimes much more quickly. What is being done to maintain supplies? Whatever might have been said three years ago, surely it is relevant now to ask that we should have from the Government a very clear and precise statement on this subject. I do not say that we should have such a statement to-day, because we shall have other opportunities which will be more suitable, of showing the House the scale—and I am not sure that it is my right hon. Friend who ought to do it— upon which factories are being laid out to meet these new requirements both for the service of the Army itself and for the Air Forces which will be attendant upon the increased Army.
This does not mean, let me say, that everything should be provided by special factories. That, I certainly do not think necessary. You make the factories which you need to produce the required material and equipment, but for the war potential in this class of article, it is a question of the preparation of factories, which will continue to work at civil production, for alternative forms of production to which they can immediately turn over when required. This means that you will mark down a great many factories for cannon production, rifle production, shell production and the like; that all the plans will be made, that the jigs and gauges for the alternative production will be made and held in store at the factories, that the


necessary alterations in lay-out of the existing factories will all have been considered, that the re-arrangement of skilled labour will have been gone into carefully, so that in a few days or at most in a week or two, a large number of plants now making for civil purposes can leap into war activity.
There has not been in Germany for three or four years a single factory which has not everything arranged for this kind of alternative production. One hears so many things nowadays that it is very difficult to discriminate between truth and rumour, but I have heard that the actual deliveries of the raw material required for the preparation of the factories for war production, have, over a very large part of Germany, recently been completed. I hope to hear from the Secretary of State, or from the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, or his representative, that the industrial arrangements are being made which will enable 19 divisions to be maintained at the front on the same scale as the divisions of other countries which they might have to meet. This is a very considerable effort, and I say, again, that if you expect Lord Chatfield, who has to deal with great questions of strategic coordination, to get a move on with this great expansion in the industrial sphere, without having under him a really responsible Minister in the House of Commons with full executive power, you will only have in the end another failure and another awakening to grim reality.
The Secretary of State for War takes great pains with his work. I have watched his career with much sympathy —except on some occasions—and I should like to remain one of his supporters. He has given us a very broad view of Army problems, but I have always been surprised that we have heard nothing from him, either last year or now, about draft-finding units. I have followed Army Debates in this House for nearly 40 years. I knew the great champions of the Card-well system. I have heard all the discussions in this House about the abolition of the old Militia and the alternative provided, when the Militia was abolished, of the 60 Special Reserve battalions of Lord Haldane. It was always understood that those draft-finding units were an absolutely vital need in the maintenance of divisions at the front—just as much as their ammunition. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has never given

any sign, in any speech of his which I have heard, that he is even aware of this problem. It may be that he has a complete plan which he has not had time to mention yet, but I do not remember any explanation being given us of how the function which used to be discharged by the Militia, and was afterwards discharged by the Special Reserve battalions, is discharged at the present time.
Let me put the actual position to the House. Under the linked-battalion system, there is one battalion abroad and one at home. The battalion abroad is at full strength and the battalion at home is raised to full strength on mobilisation by calling up the Reserve. The battalion at home also trains recruits and sends them out to the battalion abroad when they have been properly trained. That is the admirable balance of the Cardwell system. An emergency is declared; the reserves are called up, the regular home battalion is mobilised; it proceeds on active service, it marches out of the barrack gate to the port of embarkation, and what happens then? Remember that the other linked battalion already on foreign service, is also probably in action at the same time, so that there are two battalions to be fed—not one feeding the other, but something else feeding both. How shall we provide for both to be filled from the one depot? In the course of three months' fighting, what with casualties, sickness and other drains upon them, these battalions will require to be reinforced by certainly 30 or 40 per cent., or perhaps more, of their original numbers. Volunteers you will have in plenty of reservists there may even be, for the first few months a surplus but when all these pour into the depot at the deserted barracks, how are they to be handled and trained? Are they merely to be trained in an incoherent body, or are they to be woven into the structure of the military unit? That is a very important matter.
I am sorry to be so technical, but we have to look at these points. There is nothing in this about which we need quarrel. I am sure the Secretary of State will be able to give us a full explanation. I am not at all supposing that this is a matter which has entirely escaped his attention, but it has escaped the attention of many. It was always thought that the Militia battalions or the Special Reserve battalions, which succeeded them, that is to say battalions which already had a


recognised existence, would come into these barracks and spring into full life, and grip all these ardent recruits and surplus reservists into the structure of the regiment, and that their training would proceed at an intensified rate within the proper, necessary structure and encadrement, so that drafts could be sent continuously to the front, with a sense of incorporation in the regiment to which they belonged, while at the same time-mark this—these Special Reserve battalions themselves would possess, at every moment, an important intrinsic value for home defence.
Do not let us under-rate that factor. We have been talking about fighter squadrons which might be kept back, and which would be needed with the expeditionary force, but how do you know, when your expeditionary force has gone, when it has disappeared from this country, whether, under new conditions of warfare, you will not have an invasion of forces conveyed by air? If you have no troops at all, or very few, and no arrangements or organisation for large numbers of armed men, who will be there at your command and awaiting your orders, it would be quite possible for an enemy to land 4,000 or 5,000 men by an appropriate arrangement of aeroplanes. It would be perfectly easy to do so. There are tremendous munition centres that might be captured and great ports that might be seized, bat not if the whole population is armed and trained as is the case in Europe. Then a large force can be gathered from any part of the country. If the defensive part of our Territorials is confined to the business of anti-aircraft artillery and the other part has gone away and been earmarked for the expeditionary force, it is indispensable that there should be definite units always in being which are capable of proceeding to any point. There are many cases where even an invading force of 500 men could do immense havoc before they were arrested, and the idea that we should not have a nucleus force of that character at this time is altogether unwise. I was always brought up to believe that the draft-finding units were one of the keys to military organisation. I hope that we may hear from the Secretary of State how he proposes to deal with this subject and what is to be the condition of the depots when the troops have marched away to the front.
I have, I think, been critical, but I hope not entirely captious in my criticism. I should like to pay my tribute to the great achievement of the Secretary of State for War in the improvement of recruiting. He took over at a time when it was still fashionable to doubt the possibility of war, and to scoff at ideas that we should ever again send a large expeditionary force overseas. Undoubtedly there has been an enormous improvement, not only in the Regulars, but in the Territorials. It is a strange and, indeed, a sublime quality in human nature that men should come forward and volunteer the more actively as the service likely to be required from them becomes more arduous and dangerous. This faculty is a gift of the gods to nations which have in them the quality of survival. The increase of danger, the probabilities of having to go and fight and die, have been the great recruiting sergeant this year among our youth. But none of this should deprive the Secretary of State for War of a large share of the credit for the improvement in recruiting. He has made the Regular Service attractive in many ingenious material and moral ways. He has made it possible for those who wish to join the Territorials to get a measure of training without upsetting their ordinary lives. He has presided over a marked revival of the British military spirit and he has contributed to it by many well-conceived and notable expedients.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will permit me to say that he is not only a master of Parliamentary procedure, but one of its best military tacticians. Many of us thought when he opened his remarks by his references to the Government, the Secretary of State for War and even the Prime Minister, that he was at last going to make full repentance for all the criticisms he has brought to bear on the Government in the past. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is unwise to unmask one's heavy artillery too early in the battle, and his opening remarks were in the nature of a slight musketry firing preliminary to the real battle which he disclosed later in his remarks. The right hon. Gentleman is still critical of the Government and even of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and I think rightly


so, because, as I listened to his remarks, as I have listened to them on numerous occasions before, I thought there was one thing which all Members would concede to him. That is, that he applies his mind to the problems which arise and which the Government themselves have so sadly neglected in the past.
One aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech comes rather close to certain things which we on these benches have advocated, although probably for different reasons. I refer to the national control of industry. The right hon. Gentleman voiced the same opinions as those to which we have given expression. The only difference is that the right hon. Gentleman advocates the control and planning of industry when war comes, whereas we advocate it for peace time and for different purposes. The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that if and when war comes it will be impossible to carry on business as usual, as we said we could do in the last War. If I understood his speech aright, he explained the nature of the complete and total warfare of the future. He referred to the party methods of pre-War days and perhaps he placed his finger on the vital spot of post-War days. I believe that the apathy and lethargy among the forces of the Government which the right hon. Gentleman so strongly criticised is due to the fact that we have got no party warfare at the present time so far as the present Government is concerned. We have a Coalition Government, and probably that is the reason why hon. Gentlemen opposite will not give vent to their feelings and opinions, many of which are similar to those held by the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate, they will not express them on the Floor of the House, although they may exchange them in certain other places.
I would like to refer to two or three points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. In dealing with the field force, he indicated that there would be five Regular divisions and 14 Territorial divisions, and he informed us that
the regular part of the field force consists of four infantry divisions and an armoured division, generally known as the mobile division.
Further on, he says:

The present armoured division is based on three brigades of three regiments or battalions, all armed with tanks."—[Official Report, 8th March, 1939; col. 2171, Vol. 344]
I take it that the infantry divisions which he mentioned will be complete with their artillery, and also that the artillery will be what we used to know as divisional artillery. In the last War the heavier artillery, from 6–in. howitzers upwards, were under the control of the Corps, and, indeed, sometimes, as in the case of 15–in. guns or howitzers, even under Army control. I would like to ask whether provision has been made so that these four infantry divisions will be complete with the heavier artillery, particularly the 6–in. howitzers, which are now almost as mobile as the lighter artillery. In the last War 6–in. howitzers were effective counter battery weapons, and I take it that they still perform the same function. Another point, which was raised on Tuesday by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), is in regard to the pay and allowances of the younger married soldiers. It is nothing less than a scandal that these married men of under 26, whom the right hon. Gentleman is recruiting to-day, who are ready to give their all in the event of war, should in peace time be forced to allow their wives and families to go to the Poor Law for relief. We all welcome the efforts which the right hon. Gentleman has made in the past to increase the scale of pay for serving soldiers. He has shown courage and foresight in that respect, and I appeal to him to tackle the question of married soldiers under 26 in the same enlightened manner as that in which he has dealt with the scales of pay and other conditions of the serving soldier who may not be married.
I would like to turn to the strategic role of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we are to be committed to an expeditionary force in the event of war. This is something which I should imagine those who have studied this subject would have realised long ago. For some reason the Government have not indicated as clearly as the right hon. Gentleman did last Wednesday that if war broke out we should have to send an expeditionary force somewhere. Where are we going to send it? The right hon. Gentleman has obviously concentrated on what we used to know as the Western Front. I am led to say that because of a remark which he made in referring to the


Prime Minister's guarantee which has been given to France, and which we all welcome. In all probability the Western Front in the next war will assume the same proportions as it did in the last War. Therefore, I suppose we are committed to our expeditionary force going to France.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about 19 divisions going to France according to a time schedule. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping referred to the drafts which will be necessary in order to keep these 19 divisions up to fighting strength. Is it not evident that, if we get another war on the scale which has been envisaged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, we should have to find considerably more than 19 divisions to go to the Western Front. If that be so, what plans have been made for that eventuality, which may be near or may be far away? Although recruiting has made strides during the last year, we have not sufficient numbers for equipping those 19 divisions and keeping them as a fighting force in the field if we sent them across.
There is another point to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer. It must be evident that if we are involved in another war it will not only mean the mobilisation of the Regular Army and a few divisions in the Territorial Army but the complete mobilisation of our people as it took place in the last War. That will mean that we must first convince our people of the righteousness of our cause and the necessity for those huge armies, as occurred in 1914–18. What actually happened in the last War? Calls were made upon the man-power of the country, and the response in the first few months was excellent. I speak as one who joined in August, 1914. What happened? We went in our civilian clothes, and when we got to our depots the conditions there were simply chaotic even to the feeding arrangements; and as for the training facilities, we had no actual training, I believe, until several months had elapsed. That may have been all right in the last War, but if we are faced with an enemy with the power which Germany possesses to-day, as far as field forces are concerned, the 19 divisions which the right hon. Gentleman will be throwing into battle in the early months will be of small effect unless we have a powerful force behind them to back them up.
That leads to this conclusion, that if war is a possibility, and everybody knows that it is, we must not only prepare for 19 Divisions but prepare the nation for some greater effort than that, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing regarding it? He has to prepare the minds of the nation as well as their bodies, so that our people may realise what a future war will mean. Too often in speeches made by Members of the Government the minds of the nation, particularly the minds of the young people, have been confused as to the issue and as to the demands which may be made upon them if war should come.
In saying that I do not wish to say that I desire the training of the nation to be on a military footing, because it is the last thing I want. Personally, I had enough of military training in the four or five years of the last War. But although I suppose that I am over-age as far as expeditionary forces are concerned—although I am not quite sure of that—if the necessity should arise then those of us who survived the last War would be ready and willing to give our services in whatever capacity we could.
I was quite surprised by and regretted the reply which the Prime Minister gave to me recently in this House when I asked in what particular capacity Members of Parliament would be expected to serve in the event of war. The Prime Minister merely said that it was for every individual Member to decide for himself. I suggest to the Government that they will have to give a more powerful lead to the country before they can get the forces which they know to be necessary. And what are the Government doing in order to get that unity which alone can give us the man-power, and the material too, which will be necessary in order to fight this totalitarian warfare if and when it should come? In saying this we all hope that it will not come, but we should be fools if we believed that it is not possible, and listening as I do on occasions to the speeches and remarks made by leading members of the Government it seems to me that this catastrophe may not be very far away.
In talking about the large numbers which will be required if war should come I endorse fully the remarks which have been made by my right hon. Friend as to the economy in man-power which should


be used in the next war. In the last War man-power was cheap, in spite of the fact that we did not have compulsion until the last months or years of the War. Forces, human lives, were thrown into battle and wasted for objects which we in the trenches never could quite understand. Of course there are those who say that the soldier in the front-line trench does not realise what the plans of the commander-in-chief at headquarters may be, but reading the history of the last War we know that in battles like Passchendaele the flower of the youth of the country was wasted unnecessarily, and therefore, although it will evidently be necessary to mobilise large forces, I think it will also be necessary to economise in the use of those forces for reasons which my right hon. Friend referred to in his speech the other day.
I am not a master of military tactics, and I do not suppose that anybody in this House is, but those of us who study this subject as carefully as we can, reading all the authorities we can, come to the conclusion, I think inevitably, that with the vast land fortifications existing at any rate in the western part of Europe, manoeuvring in the next war will not be so easy, and therefore the main forces of men will be locked in more or lass static warfare. I am not going to say that that position will last indefinitely, because I believe that in order to win a war the infantry must consolidate the ground which has been won either by the artillery or by the Air Force, but, nevertheless, I believe that so far as the western front in particular is concerned we shall approach much nearer to static warfare than we did in the past War.
I will conclude on this note: We all regret the necessity for the Estimates which the right hon. Gentleman has presented to the House, but those of us who are realists know that they are a necessary evil. We may say, as we do say, that it is partly due to the policy which the Government have pursued in the past, and I only wish that the Government were pursuing a policy in foreign affairs which we could whole-heartedly support. We should then, both in the House and in the country, far more willingly support them in their efforts to obtain that man-power which will be necessary perhaps to save our very existence in days to come. But there it is; we

are committed to use our armed forces in the case of our Empire, in the case even of Portugal, and there are many of us who are wondering what reciprocal undertakings Portugal is going to give to us in return for sending troops abroad to fight for her integrity.
Apart from all the details which are bound to arise in discussions of this nature I do believe in this general principle, which I believe the Government should put before the country as much as they possibly can—the principle that if we are in a fight it will be a fight not of aggression but of defence. That defence may not be the defence of our own shores alone. Probably it will be defence of France's shores too. Men will always be ready to fight and, if necessary, to die for something they believe in, and it is because I believe there are millions of people in this country who believe intensely in democracy, in freedom, in liberty and all that we mean by it, that I feel we can get by voluntary methods all the men we require if only the Government will give the lead for which the nation is waiting.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. W. Astor: The Secretary of State, in the clear, comprehensive, and.. I might say, brilliant speech in which he presented his Estimates, stimulated thought on all sides of the House on problems of defence from the military angle, and I am specially gratified that he directed our attention to the problems of Imperial defence and the defence of the outlying portions of the Empire where our vital communications and some of our most vulnerable frontiers lie, because it is clear that in our Empire, with increasing self-government must come increasing responsibility for self-defence. We have Dominions, Colonies, allies, and associated States which are willing and eager to play their part in that defence, to be armed by us, to co-operate with us, not to be poor relations depending upon us, but to be partners in defence. It was, therefore, gratifying to hear that in Malta, Cyprus, and other places he is taking steps to recruit local units.
We have allies. Take Egypt, for instance. It was with the peasantry of Egypt mainly that Lord Kitchener conquered the Sudan. It was the peasants of Egypt who, under Saladin, were the force which most successfully


opposed the Crusaders. We have there an ally which desires to play its part, and we can have no fear that it will not make a most valuable contribution to the defence of its own frontiers. The same observation applies to Iraq and Portugal. Under the present administration in Portugal there has been a great revival of national efficiency, and I hope that we shall consider those allied and associated States as a most integral part of our defence plan, and I hope also that we shall, while considering those parts of the world as self-defending and self-contained units, afford them the assistance which the great military nations of the Continent are giving to their own frontiers, and that is some permanent form of fortification.
We have in Malta an island which has. very few places at which it is possible to land, and concrete forts and machine guns placed there could make it possible for the island to hold out for an immense-time. Only a sailor knows how sailors hate having to land troops against a defended beach or to use naval guns against land guns. We have the western frontier of Egypt, the land frontier of Honk Kong, all places for which I hope the right hon. Gentleman has the money carefully concealed in his Estimates, in order to enable the local forces to have the maximum aid which fortifications can give in the task assigned to them of holding out.
There is another point to which we might direct our attention, and that is the use of the different terrains on which our Army might operate. It is a question of the relative values of cavalry and mechanised units. During the time when we have been abolishing cavalry Germany has been extending cavalry. The very officers who have been discharged from the British remount depots have had the most tempting offers from Germany to go on with the job of purchasing in England horses for Germany. When the German mechanised divisions advanced into Sudetenland they had with them embussed cavalry, with the horses in lorries and the men following behind in small cars who could move with equal speed to the tanks and do the close reconnaissance in that difficult country. I hope that in regard to the mechanisation of the cavalry the War Office will try to keep in even closer touch with units who are undergoing this difficult conversion

process and with the ever-changing results of the lessons of experience. When these mechanised cavalry regiments are placed on a war footing the reservists who will come up will be men who have served in horse regiments. Would it not be better to try to create out of chauffeurs, mechanics, and drivers in civil life a special reserve of men for these mechanised regiments, to take the place of the present reservists who have been trained with horses, and send the horse-trained reservists to those Territorial units which have remained cavalry?
Many conceptions from cavalry days have been taken over. With a troop of cavalry under the old conditions, if a few men were off duty through sickness, say an epidemic of influenza, it did not affect greatly the fighting value of the unit, but now, when everybody is a highly trained man, each doing vital work, the subtraction of a very few men can very quickly put a tank or a section of tanks out of action. Surely if we are to keep a reserve carried on the strength of the regiment, those units can very well do with an embussed reserve, who with mortars could give a close support when on their task of reconnaissance they got into contact with minor points of resistance. The Spanish war has shown that one of the most important things which has affected battles has been artillery. Artillery has still been the winner of battles. I hope that my right hon. Friend will enlarge on what he said in his opening speech about a great expansion of artillery. Most observers would agree that that was one of the lessons of the Spanish war.
I would like to direct the attention of my right hon. Friend to a possible reform which requires equal thought, and that is the reorganisation of the respective functions of civilians and military men within the structure of the War Office. The War Office has suffered very much in the past as compared with the Admiralty in putting its case to the Treasury and this has been universally recognised. If we look in the handbook, in the Army List, in reminiscences and in those books on the different Government offices published in a series, I think we can see the cause. The civilians in the War Office are solely concerned with finance. They act as an outpost of the Treasury to see that as little money as possible is spent. They


loyally and efficiently carry out their functions, but it means that the demands of the War Office have to go through the double scrutiny of their own finance branch and the Treasury. The result is that when a civilian gets to the top of the War Office his whole training has not been in making the Army efficient but in saving as much money as possible.
In the Admiralty, largely owing to Lord Fisher, who did not believe in making good seamen into bad clerks, the civil side is concerned with all branches of administration. There is that great paradox called the military branch, staffed by civilians, which actually orders the movements of ships. You have this dualism the whole way up. The administration is done by civilians, which means that from the time the civilian comes into the Admiralty until the time he gets to the top he is as much concerned and interested in the efficiency of the Navy as he is in finance, and instead of being an outpost of the Treasury in the Admiralty he is the spearhead and conductor of the ideas of the Navy vis-a-vis the Treasury. That is the difference in organisation, and you have, as an invaluable result, a cross-fertilisation of ideas. You have a university-trained mind, critical and constructive, in contact with the naval mind, a mind which has not had the tightening effect of Service discipline and whose promotion does not depend upon his pleasing the existing powers that be on naval thought. You have this valuable double flow of minds on naval matters, and I am sure that that has been one of the causes of the efficiency of the Navy. Similarly, in connection with routine work the sailor, when in the Admiralty, may apply himself to staff work and not to mere matters of organisation, which can be done equally well by the civilians.
In a short space I have outlined the difference between the two systems. Hon. Gentlemen can find in the reminiscences of sailors and soldiers that these facts are shown. It is a long time since the War Office was re-organised. Might it not be worth while if my right hon. Friend could appoint a committee to inquire into its internal organisation in order to see that the vast sums which he is now very rightly' getting and the vast numbers of troops who are coming forward are applied in the most

efficient way, and so that the trained officer may not have to spend his time on matters which can be done equally well by a civilian? I would close upon an un-controversial note, which is to thank my right hon. Friend for the extraordinarily interesting day—I do not think any one has said this before in the Debate—which he gave to Members of this House at Aldershot some weeks ago. Hon. Members on all sides would like to thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy and efficiency of the Army generally, and for that most interesting day.

5.51 P.m.

Mr. Sanders: I want to refer to the reservations which I made, and the short comment I uttered, after the admirable speech of the Secretary of State for War. I said that so far as the method of the presentation of the matter was concerned, it was all that it was described to be by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Duff Cooper), but I reserved my view with regard to his speech until I had been able to read it in the Official Report. I must saw that when I read it I could not help feeling that it might be described as a statement to the effect that Great Britain never is but always to be armed. All the great events which were mentioned with regard to the rearmament of this country were in the future. There were admirable plans for war to be carried out down to a date, and the years 1940 and 1941, and so on, were mentioned. I wondered what the general staff of Herr Hitler were doing when they read that speech and whether they were chuckling to themselves over the knowledge that Germany is not waiting to be armed until 1940 or 1941 but is on a war footing.
All that I could say on this matter has been far better said, naturally, from his long experience and his eloquence by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Unfortunately, the speeches which are listened to in this House with such interest and respect remind hon. Members of the saying of a distinguished Member a century or two ago. Sir Richard Steele remarked on one occasion that he had heard in the House many speeches which changed their views but he had never heard a speech that changed a vote. Whenever I have listened in recent months to the scathing and devastating attacks of the


right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, sometimes cheered by Members behind him on the opposite side of the House, I have noticed that there has been no support of the remarks, comments and judgments he had made upon the Government and their policy.
I would repeat the statement that I made last week that while the country can be convinced that there is immediate danger of an attack upon us by the chief enemy that we have—I can use that term "enemy" although I know that the Government dare not use it, and it is not proper that they should—

Sir Francis Fremantle: We have not got an enemy—

Mr. Sanders: —because that enemy is armed up to the very hilt and there is a danger at any moment that we might be attacked, you will get people willing to give their time and service in the Army and Navy as well as in the Air Force and the many semi-civilian jobs that are being advertised to volunteers at the present moment. If, on the other hand, you give the impression that the tension has relaxed and the danger is over, and that the policy of appeasement, which has just been seen in what has happened in Czecho-Slovakia, is prevailing throughout Europe, your citizen, notoriously occupied with the short view—for which I do not blame him, because if you take long views in this world you are liable to be a pessimist—will go back. You will have a slackening of the desire of the young man, the middle-aged man and the woman to volunteer for the many services for which their help is now desired.
I say that with all the more emphasis because during the week-end a statement was published, inspired apparently by the Government, that there was very shortly to be a conference regarding the present state of armaments of the world, with a view to reducing the expenditure on that branch of expenses. Immediately, denials came from Italy and Germany that there was to be anything of the kind. Germany told us through the mouthpiece of her propaganda Minister that if we wanted peace we must give Germany what she demanded and that her first demands were not only for her colonies back but even for a probably greater share of the wealth of the world than she thought she possessed before 1914. Italy told us that the boasted

10,000,000 men who could march for Italy were prepared to march if they could not get what they wanted by discussion over the conference table.
What is the good of the Government trying to play this double game, of believing, or trying to make the people believe, that the Munich policy was a great success from the point of view of peace, when it is denied immediately and when statements like those I mentioned are put out by the two great totalitarian Powers against which—it is no use hiding the fact—we are compelled to arm? You have only to live in Germany, as I have done, to understand the attitude towards us not only of the German people but of many other countries. They say, "Yes, you can be perfectly satisfied with the position you occupy in the world. You are an old and great country; you have a magnificent Empire, so big that you cannot manage it properly and cannot people it; but you will not allow anybody else to come in and help you do the job. And yet you pride yourselves on having so much more virtue than us, because you are in favour of peace. You are in favour of peace because you do not want any war, because you could not maintain any war if you had the desire to secure a further piece of territory." If they only knew it, they could quote the American philosopher who said:
When men are old, their sins depart from them, and they egotistically think that they depart from their sins.
They would say, "You as a nation are old and great; your desire to use force has departed from you because you are satisfied, and you think that, voluntarily and by greater virtue than the other nations, you have departed from the idea of force." They, on the contrary, still hold, and openly say so, that peace is an unfortunate—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are, of course, discussing the Army Estimates, and what he says must be relevant to the Army Estimates.

Mr. Sanders: Naturally; I bow to your Ruling. I wanted to bring the mind of the House back to the fact that the men and equipment referred to in the statement of the Secretary of State for War are promises that have yet to be performed, and the way to get those promises


performed by our people on a voluntary footing is to try to demonstrate to them the danger in which the country is. If I have proceeded too far along that line, I will cease arguing on that issue, and will conclude by referring to some remarks of my right hon. Friend who opened the Debate.
In dealing with the expeditionary force, he referred to the fact that there are several places besides France where our assistance might be required, and he referred particularly to Holland and Norway. I think he might well have added Sweden to the countries that he mentioned, because it is evident, from what Swedish statesmen are saying, that they are in great fear concerning the growing power and the aspirations of the German people. In the last War I was on a Government mission that took me through Sweden, and in those days I talked over the situation with my old friend Branting, who was afterwards Prime Minister. He assured me that the attitude of Sweden towards this country would have been far more favourable if the then Swedish Government had not been terrified by the effect that the favouring of England by Sweden had on the policy of Germany towards Sweden. That feeling is arising again to-day. The same was true in the last War with regard to Holland. I remember coming back with a shipload of Dutch journalists who had been summoned to Berlin, and were then coming over to England to hear British views. They told me how their country had been threatened by Germany with invasion unless Holland took up a less favourable attitude towards this country as one of the belligerents in the Great War. One can see that that feeling is again arising in Holland, and we may be compelled to consider whether we may not have to help Holland, and not Belgium so much, when hostilities break out, if they ever unfortunately do.
I apologise for taking up the time of the House when I know that it wants to get on with other business, but I feel with what I believe to be the same emotion, if I may so call it, that is shared by hon. Members on the other side, that we are face to face with a situation which can only be parelleled by that of the few weeks before August, 1914. It is quite evident that in a very short time the demands of Italy and Germany will be

presented to us, not in the form of a wish for consultation, but in the form of a more or less veiled ultimatum, and, unless our Government are prepared to give way to those demands, we shall be face to face again with the necessity of making a decision whether we shall continue to be one of the great Powers of the world, or whether we shall rank with the other unfortunate countries of Europe who have become the vassals of the great totalitarian State of Herr Hitler.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Patrick: The main theme of the Debate to-day has been the statement of the Secretary of State with regard to an expeditionary force. I have found that outside this House, at any rate, there is a great deal of what seems to be misconception on the subject. Many people seem to suppose that the question whether we should or should not make a military effort outside these shores is one that we can examine at our leisure, weigh the pros and cons, and decide accordingly. It seems to me that, if war comes, the issue is more likely to present itself in a very different form from that. It is quite possible that we may not be given time to think things over, but may be forced to improvise a very great effort, either to relieve a dangerous situation that may have arisen here or there, or to ward off an obvious threat to some vital part of our strategical lay-out. Of course, it is merely waste of time to try to forecast the precise course of events if war did come. It is not even necessary to assume that the present grouping of political forces in Europe, and the acute tension that has arisen from it, will necessarily last long. What we have to do is to weigh up the situation as best we can and prepare against possible disaster. If we do that, I do not think anybody will find that, from a purely military point of view, there is any ground for easy optimism.
The obvious comparison that occurs to one is between the present juncture and 1914, and the first reflection that arises when we make that comparison is that by 1915 Italy and Japan were among our allies, whereas now they are members of the Anti-Comintern Triangle. We are familiar enough in this House with the idea that a change from one Lobby to another counts two on a Division. If we assume, as I think we must, that membership of the Anti-Comintern Triangle implies a likelihood of going into the Lobby


against us, it appears that we may be four down on a Division; and when one reflects that there are only seven great Powers altogether, and that one of those at least is quite likely to abstain, I think the figure is a pretty formidable one. Hon. Members laugh. Perhaps that is an obvious reflection, but I make it for this reason. We ought to remember that, although we were in some ways in comparatively more favourable circumstances in 1914, we were forced, very early in the War, to undertake great military commitments on land in the Middle East. Assuming for the sake of argument that we have at the moment to substitute Italy for Turkey, I do not think that that gives us any ground for optimism. We cannot assume that we shall not again have to undertake military commitments in the Middle East; and also military commitments of a different kind and a more serious character in the Far East, possibly more serious than any commitments that we had in the Middle East during the last War.
Lastly, we have preoccupations much nearer home. It is often said, and it has been said in this Debate, that the Maginot Line is a line of great strength. No doubt that is the case, but there are other factors which have to be considered. In the first place, there is the factor of numbers. I think it was the Military Correspondent of the "Times" who first popularised the idea that a ratio of three to one is the minimum that is necessary for a successful offensive. That may or may not be so, but, looking to the possible Western Front, it is easy to see circumstances in which the ratio might be exceeded, and in which we and France might be faced by forces greater than three times our own. Moreover, the Maginot Line, like every other line, has two ends. In 1914 we saw the Schliefen Plan in operation, and it is difficult to see why, in the event of another war, a still wider turning movement should not be attempted. If it were, the occupation of Holland, even if it failed in its objective of outflanking France, would still place us in an extremely difficult position; hostile aerodromes on the flat country behind the Dutch dunes would be, to say the least, a grave menace to us.
Summing up the present situation, it seems to be only common prudence that we should prepare for military action out-

side these shores, and I think the Secretary of State's brilliant exposition the other day was welcome to the vast majority of Members of the House. But I cannot help asking myself whether the figure of 19 divisions is really adequate to the circumstances. Let us imagine an intervention by us in the West. It is perfectly possible that, after the lapse of the weeks, or even the months, that would be necessary for the training and transport of an expeditionary force, that force of 19 divisions might find itself engaged in a theatre of war where something over 200 divisions were already engaged, and, if that were to happen,' 19 divisions would certainly not be a decisive force. In the Far East, we might find ourselves confronted with a Power—I will mention no names—which might put against us no fewer than 150 divisions.
It is obvious that in a vast defensive programme such as this we have never to lose sight of the question of priority. No one will question that the Government did right in laying stress on the Air Force and the Navy. Clearly, the first thing is to do everything we can to ensure as much security for this country as we can get. But now that aircraft production is increasing and the heavy naval programme is under way, we have to pay more attention to the military side of our defence problem. I believe the Secretary of State is right in giving the Territorial Army the role of providing the main bulk of our new striking force, because we have no other source on which to draw without revolutionising our whole system, and we do not want to swop horses when we are, if not crossing the stream, climbing up a very slippery bank; and secondly, because, as has been already pointed out in the Debate, the Territorial force is so remarkably cheap. It often strikes me that the public of this country do not recognise what they owe to the Territorial force. Other forms of national service get a great deal of publicity—in fact, the manufacture of boot polish is listed as essential to the community—but I think that if the public really recognised the spirit of the Territorial force they would show a great deal more gratitude. Thousands of the young men, most of them after doing a hard day's work at their own occupations, have the public spirit to turn out at night and train, although training in many cases is dull and monotonous.
Again, in the case of the Territorial Army there is the question of priority. For just the same reason as the Government have rightly concentrated on the Air Force for the defence of the country, so they have done right in concentrating on the anti-aircraft forces of the Territorial Army, because defence must be the first consideration. These anti-aircraft forces are engaged in the most difficult of all tasks just now—to expand rapidly while remaining efficient; but, so far as my limited information goes, they are being remarkably successful at that. The time will shortly come when the main weight of the Government's attention should go to the other side of the Territorial Army, the field army; but it is no use attempting to expand forces until the equipment is ready, and that I believe is not yet the case. No one in this House will expect a precise and explicit statement from the Government as to their intentions, but it would be a great relief to many of us if they could say that they have kept in mind the necessity for the ultimate expansion of the field force, and that they are not going to lose sight of it.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Price: I am glad that many of the speeches we have heard this afternoon have dealt with the broader strategical aspects in connection with the tasks of our Army. I do not think we should adopt the attitude that war is inevitable, but it is desirable that we should recognise the danger and not think that, owing to the greater preparedness of this country, we can now afford to rest on our oars, and not continue the effort which has been begun. It is right for us to see that the Army is effective and efficient to the very last degree. In considering this Vote A of the Army Estimates, the House is necessarily concerned with the question of the size of the Army and the purposes for which it will be used. After we have secured that the Territorial Army provides effective anti-aircraft units on our home front, after garrisons have been provided for outlying parts of the Empire and expeditionary forces for places where they may be necessary, it appears, from the Minister's speech last week, that he contemplates placing at the disposal of a Power on the Continent, which is clearly France, 19 divisions of the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. We all agree

that some support for France is absolutely necessary, if only in order to give the French Republic that moral support to which she is entitled. The only concern of this House is to see that our military effort shall be commensurate with the cost and effectiveness of that effort.
Speaking as a layman, one who has no special knowledge, but, nevertheless, as an amateur student of history, I think we have to consider the historical role of this country, and whether it is really necessary for us to envisage a similar problem as faced us in the last War. Is the creation of a gigantic Continental army by this country, in addition to the other forces we have to provide, absolutely necessary? Here one's doubt comes in. It is essential that the Army shall be efficient in the highest degree. I understand that the effectiveness of the infantry to-day depends very much on the equipment, particularly in regard to such weapons as Bren guns. I understand that the full complement of Bren guns will be provided for the Regular Army, but I think I am right in saying that, provisionally at any rate, there is no prospect of the Territorial Army getting its full complement of these guns. Is that just because those supplies are not yet forthcoming in sufficient quantity, and does the Minister intend that the Territorial Army shall be equipped with the latest appliances to the same degree as the Regular Army?
It seems to me that it is not size which counts to-day in an Army, but quality There it is that I am inclined to disagree with the speeches of those who last week supported the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Major Rayner) in regard to the size of the Army. It seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member laid too much stress on the question of size. He envisaged the strategical conditions of 1914 to 1918 once more. He doubted the wisdom of a mechanised David meeting a Goliath on the Continent who, he feared, would also be mechanised. It seems to me that, as has been said before in this Debate, and as was said last week, the size of the Army to-day is, I do not say of no importance, but of less importance, provided that that Army is thoroughly well equipped; and it is possible for us to send an effective force over, even though it is not large, which may tilt the balance one way or another. In fact, success is more


likely to come to those who conserve their energy in the early stages rather than to those who throw everything into the balance in the first few weeks or months. I am strengthened in that view by articles in the "Times," from their military correspondent, Captain Liddell Hart. In one of his books, "Europe in Arms" he says:
The scales of war are inclining not to the side of the big battalions, but to the side which gets there first.
Later on he says:
Possession is nine-tenths of the war.
In fact, it is not so much size as fighting power, and being able to get to your objective immediately, that counts. Of course, we have a very different position from 1914–1918 in France, owing to the construction of the Maginot Line, with its modern fortifications, which have quite altered the situation. It can even be argued that the immense effort of the last War might have been avoided if the French had adopted certain other operations in the beginning of the War. The responsibility for the German invasion of Belgium and Northern France, I think history will show, was due not to the size of the little Expeditionary Force we were able to send to the Continent, which in its way did great work, not to the fact that we did not send a bigger force there, but to the fact that the French general staff were engaged on an offensive in the open, the "offensive a outrance." The French General Staff went in for an invasion of Alsace when they would have done much better to concentrate on preventing a threatened German invasion of Belgium. That, I think history will show, was a mistake on the part of France, and I think the French military experts realised that, because, directly the War was over, they seemed to adopt quite different tactics by strengthening the defences of France by the latest engineering and technical methods which science was able to give them. So they have the Maginot Line. These are considerations which we cannot ignore and which also are a pretty good answer to those who are arguing that it is necessary for us to envisage a large expeditionary force on the Continent similar to that which we had in the last War. We have to consider dispersal of our military efforts in various theatres of war. Various Members speaking this afternoon have referred to the danger threatening the Scandinavian

countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) who opened the Debate, referred to the danger to Scandinavian countries and an hon. Member opposite referred to the danger to Holland. If it had not been for the fact that we were tied up with French strategy during the last War, I do not believe that the terrible effort of four years to oust the Germans from Northern France would have been necessary at all. The whole four years of misery was to a large extent due to the misguided tactics in the early stages of the last War.
We can now return to our old historical task of small expeditionary forces aided by all the new weapons, which are in favour of defence all the time rather than of attack. It has always been our historic role as a nation to adopt those tactics. In the wars against Louis XIV we adopted them, again in the Seven Years War, and in the Napoleonic wars. We sent small forces to various threatened parts of Europe and often further a field. They were not always successful, but many of them were. That, I maintain, will again be our role to-day. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) referred to Egypt, Persia and Turkey who, I agree with him, are friends now and potential allies to whom it may be necessary for us to give assistance. Therefore, it would be wrong tactics for us to waste our efforts on colossal expeditionary forces in France when we have to assist all these possible friends and allies scattered about all the various parts of the Near and Middle East which may have immense and even possibly decisive effect in terminating a war. Since the disaster of Munich it seems as if Central Europe is coming under the domination of the totalitarian regime and it will be very difficult for us to retrieve the position there, but it is not by any means hopeless in dealing with countries further a field providing we maintain a policy of close friendship with Russia, Turkey and Rumania. The indications in those countries are that given sufficient encouragement they will show their teeth to a possible totalitarian invader whatever form or shape he may take.
There is one other point we must not forget. I certainly realised when, thanks to the kind invitation of the War Minister, we went down to Aldershot the other day and saw that magnificent display, and


saw coining across the plain all those wonderful engines of war and destruction, what a colossal expense and what a consumer of petrol they are going to be, and also what a tremendous industrial effort it will need to maintain them in working order. Therefore, we have to consider not so much large man-power to be sent to the trenches of the Maginot Line but the sending of small forces abroad to vital points and maintain them. In order to do that we must have our full complement of highly skilled mechanics and engineers working here at home. We must keep our industrial background in this country up to the fullest and best possible standard. That was not done in the last War. It was to a large extent the breakdown of munitions in the second year of the War which indicated how little that had been considered. Let us learn from that fault that the even greater problem of keeping this army to-day with its tremendous mechanism, is going to mean a considerably greater industrial effort in our rear in order to maintain that position. I hope, therefore, the War Minister will not listen to the syren voices of those who, in the Debate last week, not so far in the Debate to-day, have tried to induce him to navigate the dangerous waters of a large expeditionary force, but to remember the historic role of this country and get our army ready to go to any threatened part of the world, efficient and effective to the very last degree.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Amery: Before I say something about the broad strategical argument which the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) has developed, I hope I may be allowed to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very remarkable statement which he made in introducing his Estimates last Wednesday. That statement included many admirable reforms of detail, which, I think, commended themselves to the House, and I am sure commended themselves to the officers and men concerned. I have no intention of commenting on this, because what interested me most in his speech was the fact that his whole outlook upon the problem of the Army was based upon a clear strategical conception of what the British Army stands for in the peculiar circumstances of our Empire and Defence problems. In some countries the problem of military organisation is in one

sense a very simple one. The same organisation covers defence at home and attack upon the enemy alike. Our problem is much more complicated. With us local defence and expeditionary effort, whether to succour some other part of the Empire or to help an ally, are two entirely different things and involve a different organisation and structure.
My right hon. Friend approached that difficulty very clearly when he emphasised the fact that, first of all, the local defence of this country is a matter, apart from the help of the Navy and the Air Force, for a highly specialised branch of the Territorial Army, of a part of our armed forces not really available for operations anywhere else. Similarly, he made it clear that our vitally important naval ports scattered over the world not only required local defence, but that, in the strategical conditions of to-day, required that local defence to be fully ready for war at any moment. He added—and I was delighted to hear him—that he was resolved to make greater use in these naval stations of the admirable local material which already exists. I remember how hard I tried in the old days at the Colonial Office to get the War Office to consider making more use of Malta in that connection, so I was naturally delighted to hear that he is strengthening the Malta artillery by another thousand men. If I understood him rightly, he is also reviving the old habit by which British units stationed in Malta used to take in 'local recruits. In both cases, it is a matter not only of the immediate value of the men secured, but of the fact that in that community you are helping to build up a military spirit and pride in the British Empire. I am delighted to think that he is going on with that work, and the only suggestion that I care to throw out in that connection is whether in some of these places, at any rate, he might not try to develop something in the nature of a territorial system, in addition to enlisting the local elements in regular forces paid for by the War Office. So much for local defence.
The most interesting part of his speech, however, dealt with his conception of the strategical reserves of the Empire, as not necessarily concentrated entirely, or even mainly, in this country. Naturally, he could speak at the moment only of those strategical reserves which are under his own direct control. We hope to hear


before long of the part that, as a result of Lord Chatfield's recommendations, India will be able to play in the defence of the Empire in the future. We also know, in fact, that we have military reserves, very formidable if perhaps not very rapidly developed, in the great Dominions, With the two main reserves under his control, that in this country and the one he proposes to build up in the Middle East, obviously there are enormous advantages, especially if there is any danger of naval operations in the Middle East and the Mediterranean making transport of troops and supplies difficult in the early weeks and months of war, of having a substantial reserve in that part of the world which could operate over a very considerable radius, and operate at once.
Nothing but praise is due to the Secretary of State for War for having the courage to come to a decision that we ought to have an important strategical reserve in the Middle East. I gather from what he said that that is to be built up on the two Divisions already there today, and that that reserve will be entirely outside the strategic reserves, the six Regular divisions that are to be completed in this country. We might well consider whether that reserve should not be even more substantial than it is in view of some of the dangers which may threaten us in the Middle East at any moment. I would like him to give really serious consideration to the formation of something in the nature of a formidable Middle Eastern legion of, say, a couple of divisions. There is admirable material to be found in that part of the world itself. We have had no finer auxiliary troops in the world than the Assyrians, and I believe that admirable material, too, may be found in that part of the world among Arabs and Jews, out of all of them it ought to be possible to select the groundwork, admirable troops, which, apart from their own immediate fighting value, would secrete their reserves in that part of the world, so that in the event of war the reserves would be immediately available. I see no reason why in the recruiting of such a Middle Eastern legion we should not fully avail ourselves of some of the very fine military material that exists among the refugees who are coming, or who wish to come, to this country from all over the world. Men of that sort trained for five years or so with

the British Forces would make admirable citizens afterwards.
Now I come to the main issue of the strategic reserve in this country and the Expeditionary Force which, according to my right hon. Friend's statement, we are now contemplating—an Expeditionary Force of six Regular and 13 Territorial Divisions. Can we say, frankly, facing the dangers of the situation as they exist to-day, that that force is sufficient? My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Patrick) gave some very good reasons for suggesting that that force is not adequate to the dangers that may confront us at the very outset of war. We must consider its adequacy not merely from the point of view of numbers, but from the point of view of the time within which it can be brought to bear upon the decisive front at the decisive moment.
The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) emphasised the idea that it is a very good thing to keep our strength in reserve, as we have done in past centuries. I doubt very much whether that is possible to-day. We are confronted with nations in which every ounce of national strength is organised to the supreme point of being able to throw an overwhelming strength into the battle at the very first moment. What led to the initial French disaster and the prolongation of the War was not so much faulty French strategy as the fact that it had never occurred to the French in 1914 that the Germans were going to put all their reserve formations into the front line at the very outset of the War, with the result that they invaded France with an Army something like 50 per cent. larger than any calculation which the French had made. The Germans came very near to winning the War in the first few weeks. In any case, they gained, as a consequence of that overwhelming initial strength, such a hold upon a large part of Northern France that our efforts in the four years that followed were wasted in the costly and ruinous task of trying to drive them out of entrenched positions, instead of being able to hold the French front ourselves and developing our efforts in other directions.
The hon. Member used two arguments which were not entirely consistent with each other. He used an argument about reserving our efforts, which is an argument for having a small force available


at the outset. He also used the argument of dispersal, an argument which might be very much to the point. It is quite possible if war breaks out in Europe that our help may be more vitally required possibly in North Africa, possibly in Holland, it may be in Scandinavia, or, possibly, as the hon. Member suggested, in supporting allies that might lift up their heads and be prepared to stand by us in South Eastern Europe. But all that demands considerable forces. That might be a good strategical argument in itself, but it is not an argument for being unprepared with an Army of considerable size, ready to take the field at the outset of war.
The doubt that I feel about my right hon. Friend's scheme is whether, in fact, it is going to give us at the outbreak of war an Army adequate to the task it will have to meet, either in numbers or in training. We know quite well that our preparation in 1914 was not adequate, yet in 1914 we were in some respects better prepared than we are now, or than we are going to be even under my right hon. Friend's scheme. It is true that his Territorial Divisions will be better equipped, but so will the divisions of our opponents, whoever they may be. The total number, at any rate, of men in those divisions is only about half the field force which the Territorial Army, created by Lord Haldane, could have deployed if it had been thought advisable or possible at the outset of the War to have sent troops into action in so untrained a condition.
Let me ask my right hon. Friend some questions about the course that he is contemplating, because it is vital that we should know under his scheme what it is that we have to rely upon and what our allies have to rely upon. He told us that he hoped in the course of this financial year to have all the equipment available for the five Regular Divisions, but not entirely for the additional sixth division. Does that mean that in the course of this year those five divisions could be sent over at once, as fast as the ships could carry them? In 1914 we had six Regular Divisions, which could have gone to the front within a week. If when we mobilised for war the order for the Regular Divisions being given priority over the posting of the Territorials to their war stations had been sanctioned by Mr. Asquith and

the Government of the day, the whole of that force could have gone at once. Purely political reasons and the doubts of Lord Kitchener not only held back the Expeditionary Force for some days, but held back the last two divisions for some weeks. Nevertheless, in 1914 we had six divisions absolutely equipped, as well equipped as any Continental Division, and far better trained, available to send overseas in the first few days.
Can my right hon. Friend say how soon his five modern Regular Divisions will be in a position to go over as quickly as that? He has got now a fairly substantial Regular Reserve. In a speech a short time ago I under estimated it by something like 30,000 men. I am glad that I was mistaken. He has begun to build up a supplementary reserve, and I should like to reinforce the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) as to the great importance of having not merely reservists crowded in the depots, but a cadre organisation, preferably built up as units in peace time, in which these men could be trained with Regular units and sent to the front from those units, with the possibility of those units themselves building up cadre organisations, from which men could follow to the front as soon as might be.
Let me turn to the position of the Territorial Force. I think the Territorial Force will appreciate the compliment which has been paid it by the fact that it is now to be an essential part of our main fighting force. It has also been greatly complimented by knowing that it is to be equipped in every way as well as the Regular Army. I should like to repeat a question, though not to elaborate it to the extent that was done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, and that is, when will these Regular Territorial units be in possession of that equipment? At what stage will that Territorial Force be sent to the front? Is there to be a long gap of months, perhaps, before it is available? If so, the issue of the war may well have been decided before they go. There is one further point. The more modern equipment is elaborated and developed, the greater is the need for training. If the Territorial Force is to be equipped with all the paraphernalia of the Regular Army, is it really going to be ready to take the field immediately war breaks out, with no better training


than it gets during the fortnight in camp, which the large proportion of them will have undergone, and the various evening drills? It would be little less than massacre to send troops so untrained into the field, however up-to-date their equipment might be. I should have thought that all this modern equipment required a greater period of training, not only in the individual units but collective divisional training before you could send the men to the front.
There is another point in the same connection. Unlike the Regular Army, the Territorial Force has not got its regular reserves. If it were sent to the front at the outbreak of war and casualties began pouring in, as they did in the early part of the Great War, how would that Force be kept up during the months that would be required to raise new forces and train them? When one examines the question of this Expeditionary Force of 19 divisions, we are not, except in the matter of equipment, which has been developed in every country, in a very different situation from that in which we found ourselves in 1914. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider how we can get out of this situation. How are we to provide a force of considerable magnitude—I believe it should be greater even than the 19 divisions—adequately trained for the very moment when war breaks out, instead of having improvised troops training for months after the war has begun, while the whole tide of war may be drifting against us during those months and, perhaps, unlike 1914, drifting irretrievably against us?
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend may think it possible that by some system of one-year service we might create a much larger short service Regular Army. I doubt very much, however, whether the type of men who would come forward for such service would come forward in sufficient numbers for the purpose. Our reservoir of men who are willing to take on professional service in the fighting Forces is being very much drawn upon at the present time, with all the demands for an increased Navy, an increased Air Force and an increased Regular Army. I doubt very much whether by any device of that sort you could get the men required. How are we to get men with the minimum training required to put them in the fighting line at the outset of a war? Surely the only

way we can work out this problem, if we wish to be safe, is to ask ourselves first of all what is the minimum amount of training necessary to enable men to hold their own, even in defensive positions, against highly trained adversaries. When you have decided that, you can consider on what lines, voluntary or otherwise, you will raise the men.
No one can hold a higher opinion of the voluntary patriotism of the people of the country than I do. I think that the way in which tens, indeed hundreds of thousands of men are prepared to give up their evenings, when they come back tired from work, to give up their Saturdays and their holidays in order to serve their country and bear the first brunt of danger when it comes is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping said, something that is almost sublime. Only we must face the limit of the kind of sacrifice these men are prepared to make. As long as it is a sacrifice of spare time you will find, at any rate, very large numbers of men who will come forward and give up to their country the time they might otherwise give to rest or sport or to their families, although even so they may be greatly influenced by momentary considerations. An hon. Member suggested that it was dangerous to our whole system of defence to talk of appeasement, because it would at once discourage recruiting. We have heard other speeches which suggest that, as long as a large section of our people disapprove of the foreign policy of the Government, recruiting cannot succeed. But, when you are dealing with something as a permanent system, you cannot base your permanent strength, a strength that has to be prepared years before the crisis comes, on the national view, right or wrong, of a particular Government's policy at a particular moment. It is not a sound foundation.
I have often spoken on behalf of unpopular causes, and I should like most earnestly to put before the House my own conclusion, for what it is worth, that you cannot secure an adequate force available at the outbreak of war—adequate, I mean, either in numbers or in training—unless you have some universal national obligation for training upon all your citizens. I am not advocating the idea that we shall ever again send into the fields of Flanders a force as large as that which we raised in the Great


War. Our demands for munitions, and other purposes are relatively going to be much higher, and there are many considerations that come into the picture. All the same, if we have to meet nations which fight on the plane of total effort, we shall have to make our total effort too. You cannot win a war in two elements if you lose it in the third.
I am convinced that we shall have to come to this in peace, and it is far better that it should come in peace than in confusion, too late to be helpful, after war has begun. The principle is accepted by the nation, as far as a major war is concerned, after war has begun. Would it not be far better to accept the principle of training in peace and then consider, according to the scale of the war in which you are involved, whether you should then rely upon the voluntary effort of a trained nation or feel obliged, in view of the magnitude of the war, to call upon the whole resources of the nation? I know I shall be told, "Do not suggest something at this moment which must take time to develop, and therefore interfere with what is being done already." That was the argument used as far back as 1908 by Lord Haldane against Lord Roberts. We all know now that, if Lord Roberts's policy had been accepted, we should have been infinitely better prepared for the Great War than we were. There is no reason why the laying down of a system of regular legal obligation upon the youth of the country need interfere with the great, immediate effort that we may have to make in case danger faces us in the next few weeks or months. It may not. The immediate danger may pass away, but danger in some form of other may face us for many years to come, and the sooner we make the right preparation for it the better.
I shall be asked, If you advocate that, are you prepared to advocate equality of sacrifice in other directions? Certainly. The risk of the sacrifice of life is the same for all. Whatever sacrifice is needed on the part of the wealthy they must make. Certainly I should be the last to suggest that in this matter there can be any distinction of class or any privilege. Another argument that I have heard rather frequently is that, in view of the present differences over foreign policy, such a suggestion would divide the nation, which ought to remain united. Of course we

ought to remain united but, if a thing is desirable and necessary on its merits in order to avert disaster, are we justified in remaining disunited about it because we differ on what are, after all, temporary issues? Surely if this is right—I only ask for its consideration on its merits from the point of view of the grave dangers that face us—we are at bottom too patriotic a nation not to be able, by mutual consultation if necessary, even by the formation of some new combined Government, or by agreement, and with the consent of the nation, in some way or other to find a basis of opinion upon which we can carry out measures which, I believe, are essential to our safety, which, I believe, could be carried out with no real injury to our industrial framework, and which would be of immense advantage to the health and happiness of the individuals concerned.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I shall await with interest the reply of the Secretary of State to the right hon. Gentleman's closing remarks, because the appeal that is made to him is to say whether, in the view of the Government, the time has arrived when the voluntary principle should be abandoned, not on any question of mere political expediency but by a long-term view of the military situation of the world. That is a responsibility that the Government must take and must advise the House and the country upon in the light of the considerations advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. He introduced into the concluding sentences of his speech one phrase which, I think, calls for some comment from this side. He suggested that such a measure of compulsory military service might be introduced by a new combined Government. I am bound to say that I can see no hope of any combination between my hon. Friends and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite unless the latter are prepared completely to reverse their foreign policy. I can see no ground for suggesting that, in order to pursue a military policy which we do not want, we should link ourselves up with a Government whose foreign policy we detest. After all, allusion has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and by virtually every one who has spoken from this side of the House, to the disastrous effect that the diplomatic defeat of


Munich has had upon the position of this country in the world.
To-day we have been discussing having to go to the aid of countries which we did not regard as being in the slightest jeopardy 12 months ago. Hon. Members on both sides have been discussing the possibility of having to go to the aid of Sweden, Holland, and other countries which did not enter into our consideration a year ago, and I cannot see that there is the slightest ground for suggesting, as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest, that out of all this there is something so very attractive to Members on this side of the House that we should link forces with right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench.
I want to repeat some questions which I put the other day and which the Financial Secretary did not answer. I am not complaining of that because they were rather outside the main line of argument on the Motion then before the House. Last year the right hon. Gentleman announced a new scheme by which men from the ranks will be able to get commissions, and he announced a new scheme for warrant officers, Class 3, as another way—though I could never understand how that was going to work—of increasing the number of men getting commissions, from the ranks. It always appeared to me to be one way of side-tracking men from getting commissions. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how far his scheme has really increased the number of men from the ranks who have gained commissions during the year. I do not want to be told "a big number," and then find that substantially all of them are men who have been made quartermasters. I want the number of men who have managed to get, through the new methods adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, fighting commissions from the ranks. Has he managed to get—I put that question quite definitely—30 men from the ranks with commissions other than quartermasters' commissions and, if not, is he satisfied with the way in which his scheme is working out?
I also want to ask whether he is satisfied that he is getting a sufficient number of men recruited from the municipal secondary schools of the country into commissioned ranks. Is he managing to get the intake into the commissioned ranks of the Army from a wider social sphere than has been the case in the past? Is he able

to impose his views on commanding officers of regiments and other persons in authority so as to keep down expenses in the regiments in order that men with limited means can take a commission and make the Army a profession; men with sound military instincts who are not persons with a substantial private income? So far as leadership in the Army is concerned there is a great ground of recruitment of officers in those social classes which have not hitherto been regarded as a likely recruiting ground for officers for the Army. It is a field which has not been effectively tilled by the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessors. The part of his speech last year which impressed me most was that part which he devoted to the question of widening the intake for officers and getting an additional number of commissions from the ranks.
To my mind there have been two significant features of to-day's Debate. The first was the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) in which he asked the House to consider the Army Estimates in relation to the general question of the defences of the country spread over the three Services which now form the fighting Services. I join the right hon. Member for Epping in expressing the hope that at some time during the Session we may have an opportunity of discussing that wider issue in circumstances which will enable the points raised by the right hon. Member for Keighley to be pursued with regard to each of the three Services. The second point which impressed me in the early speeches was the clear statement by the right hon. Member for Epping when he once more put on the clothes of the prophet and suggested that the 19 divisions to go abroad are but the beginning of a policy which during the next year or two, if we are given the time, will be expanded by the right hon. Gentleman or his successors in office.
I ask; is this merely a beginning? Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage having to come here in successive years with greater demands upon the man-power of the nation for an expeditionary force other than the 19 divisions for which he is asking to-day? The right hon. Member for Epping for the last five or six years has been so successful a prophet that one is bound to have the highest regard for anything he says in this sphere. Is this the beginning of the price which the youth


of the nation has to pay for the disaster of Munich? Are these 19 the first of the divisions which are to replace the 35 divisions which were thrown away last September, and have we now to contemplate creating or securing from some other sources further divisions not merely to replace those divisions but to give us back something of the position we held in Europe now so enormously deteriorated by Munich and all that has followed it?
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy to reply to the questions I have put about men getting commissions from the ranks. It is truer of the British Army than of any other that it has depended in the past and will depend in the future upon the quality of the men who lead it. I sincerely hope that the ranks who served us so magnificently between the years 1914 and 1918, the non-commissioned officers and warrant officers, who are the backbone of the Army, will be given an opportunity, as their educational opportunities have increased, not merely of getting at a fairly advanced stage of life a commission in the Army but of being brought into the commissioned ranks at an age when they may look forward with reasonable certainty to rising to the highest commands. I am sure that nothing that the right hon. Gentleman can do on the side of man-power will be more effective than to make it possible for these men to enter the commissioned ranks of the Army

7.21 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in his rather quaint humour alluded to the disaster of Munich and said that it may lead to the potential slaughter of the youth of this country. If the hon. Member has the intelligence with which I have hitherto credited him he will realise that without Munich the slaughter of the youth of this country would have already have taken place, and on a very much larger scale than that which I think will be possible in the future; and would have taken place when the youth of this country were in a much worse position to defend themselves than they are now.

Mr. Ede: That particular phrase was a quotation from the hon. and gallant Member's right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). It was not my "quaint humour."

Sir R. Ross: The hon. Member for South Shields does well to excuse himself and hide in the thickets of Epping. It was a most unfortunate observation. I want to refer to two matters—to one very briefly and to the other in a little more detail. In the first place I hope the Secretary of State for War will appreciate that the policy of wholesale mechanisation, which I admit I thought at one time was the appropriate policy, has had considerable doubts thrown upon it by such recent lessons as have occurred in various parts of the world where a state of ill-feeling exists, where cavalry have still been found to fulfil a useful function. We must not forget that in the British campaign in Palestine in the last War the cavalry probably had the greatest success which that arm has ever enjoyed.
I pass to my second point, which is of very great importance. It has already been referred to by the right hon. Member for Epping. It is the provision of draft-finding units. The situation now is considerably altered because the Secretary of State for War has frankly said that the doctrine of war on a limited liability basis is impracticable. If we are committed to war we are committed to war with the whole forces of the Empire. We make no reservations. We are going to put, on whatever field of action is the most appropriate, a force in the first instance of 19 divisions, although it is perfectly clear that it has not been suggested by the Secretary of State for War that these 19 divisions are going en masse in the first weeks of mobilisation, but in a reasonable time.
The question is can we maintain these divisions? I have looked to see what reserves are provided in the Estimates, and I find that the only reserves available for this force of 19 divisions will be the Army Reserve of 144,000 men. We know that a greater part of this Reserve is taken up on mobilisation in filling the ranks of peace establishments up to war strength. In addition to that we have the Supplementary Reserve. Hon. Members will find the details of this Reserve on page 55 of the Estimates, where are the numbers of the various arms given in some detail. They are in three categories, and they are almost all technicians. Where you will find wastage is in the infantry, yet out of 64,542 other ranks of the Supplementary Reserve only


17,000 are infantry. Then there is the Army Ordnance Corps. Far be it from me to suggest that this very admirable corps does not fulfil most useful functions. They are half the strength of the infantry, 8,852. Can we suppose that the casualties in the Army Ordnance Corps will be on a similar scale to those of the infantry? That is the only provision of reserves.
There are two considerations; one is to keep the Army going at all costs until the men who join up on mobilisation have been trained. I suggest that the popular idea of those who have not had much acquaintance with the Army, that an infantryman can be trained in a few weeks, is fallacious. Hon. Members opposite who have served in the ranks as infantrymen will support the view that the training of an infantryman is a difficult and technical art, which takes a considerable time. In the last War we had the battalions of the Special Reserve who were draft-finding units, and it was they who kept the British Army in the field during the winter of 1914–15. They had not perhaps a very high technical training but they had an extremely good musketry training. They were taken from the classes from which the Regular Army is generally recruited, and they fitted into the Regular Army very well, although they were rather older men in many cases.
I want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the degree of reinforcement which was necessary on that occasion. Up to the end of November we had seven divisions in the field on the Western Front, and by the 30th November they had already suffered casualties greater than the entire infantry establishment of the seven divisions. They had already received reinforcements of 108,310 other ranks, and were already very short of officers, so short that even the adjutants of Territorial battalions were being taken and sent to France, a fact which I think cost the Territorial battalions great losses later on when they had to go into action. That is one aspect of the matter; there will not be trained men to fill up the lag which there must be between a declaration of war and the time when men can be trained.
The other point is one which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) made when he spoke, and that was when he described going into a new army unit and told how many other people were,

like himself, filled with enthusiasm and a desire to.serve and be efficient, but he was merely one of a mob, with no organisation to go into and with no possibility of training for a period of months. That is what the situation will be unless we have provided draft-finding units, not units such as the first-line Territorials, who expect to see service as units and in formations, but units which can perhaps be officered to a considerable degree by retired Regular officers, who would still be quite competent to train men and who could be strengthened by retired Regular non-commissioned officers, who would be quite invaluable for training purposes, although probably of an age past active service. If you had such formations, it would be a much easier thing to absorb the recruits whom you would get on the declaration of hostilities, and I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the House what provision is made for maintaining the supply of men and their equipment in case we are committed, as we now may be, to putting, I do not say all 19 divisions, but a substantial number of divisions, in the field to fight armies equipped on the modern scale. I would humbly suggest to him that to put an Army in the field which you cannot maintain is worse than putting no army in the field at all.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I wish to put a few observations on record for the consideration of the Secretary of State and his Department. The first one is with regard to the mechanised Army. I have already paid a tribute, in this House and outside, to the efficiency of that Army, but I think those who have been responsible for its mechanisation have utilised the services of the men to an extent that has affected the provision that has to be made for those men, and I want to ask the Secretary of State to pay particular attention to this matter, because what I am stating I know is a fact. In deciding how best the services of men can be utilised, I think there has been too great an economy at the expense of the cooking of the food. As far as the quality and the quantity of the food are concerned, I have no complaint to make at all, but in the preparation of the food and in using the modern appliances and cooking utensils which have been provided, I think the number of men at the disposal of those responsible for the cooking


is too small. Rather than that any friction should be caused or any inefficiency brought about as a result of that, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to the matter, because I know what many of us had to contend with in France as a result of that sort of thing. Not only was there a shortage in the cookhouses, but there was also a poor quality of food in France, and therefore, speaking for the men in the Army, I hope the Secretary of State will have regard to that point.
The second point that I wish to make is this, and it does not apply only to the Secretary of State for War, but I hope the Secretary of State for Air and the First Lord of the Admiralty also will take notice of it. One would think that in the armed forces, at any rate in the canteens, when any crockery was purchased it would be purchased in this country. I do not want to labour this question, but merely to place it on record, that, in my view, and in the view of many of my hon. Friends, when any crockery is purchased by any of the officials in charge of the armed forces, that crockery should be British.

7.35 P.m.

Lord Apsley: The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) reminded us that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) attempted to learn from the Prime Minister whether there would be a Debate on Defence. That point interested me, because it is not the first time that it has been raised. The right hon. Gentleman said, quite truly, that it was done last year; it was also done the year before and the year before that, and I had a certain amount to do with that, because previous to that, when the Estimates came on there was a general Debate on questions ranging, say, from foreign policy to matters of strategy, and large numbers of hon. Members had no opportunity to put matters of important detail to the Minister until, in the case of the Air Estimates anyhow, the small hours of the morning, when we were all half asleep and nobody was listening. Therefore, when the Ministry for the Co-ordination of Defence was formed, the first thing that was done was to arrange, through the usual channels, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, that there should be a Debate on Defence, in which all those

matters of strategical importance, including foreign affairs, could be debated, leaving matters of detail to be discussed on the proper occasion, namely the Service Estimates.
I am not sure even that matters like the role of the Army can properly be discussed on the Army Estimates without bringing in also the roles of the other two Services, and it hardly fair to the Army to expect them to be discussed on the Army Estimates. The role of the Navy is well known; it is the sailors' element. The role of the Air Force is also fairly certain; it is quite a simple manoeuvre. But when you come to the role of the Army, you are treading on very delicate ground, and if I may use an aeronautical metaphor, if any more weight is put on to its tail, it will probably develop into a flat spin. The role of the Army should therefore for the time being left alone.
I should like to join in the chorus of praise for the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in introducing these Army Estimates. He gave us a speech, as usual, carefully worked out and with great Parliamentary effect. He painted us a picture of the Army in which the colours were vivid, and yet so arranged as to harmonise with those of the other Services when their Estimates come on. His technique was careful and well thought out, if perhaps on a slightly surrealist structure. Nevertheless, it was one which we all admired, and the effect has been that he rallied to the side of the Government all those hon. Members who form what I might call the 1914 or Expeditionary-Force-in-France group. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, though he is inclined to be a somewhat insubordinate recruit, has been rallied to the Government, and that is a great achievement on the part of the Secretary of State. Its effect abroad, no doubt, has been to cheer the French and no doubt to frighten the Germans. Perhaps I may paraphrase the Duke of Wellington and say that whatever the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech may have been on Hitler, "By God, it has frightened me."
He told us that there are 19, divisions in this expeditionary force, six of them Regular and 13 Territorial. I would like to leave out the armoured divisions for the present and examine first the infantry


divisions, which are the important part of every Army. It is the infantry that win the battles. There are four Regular infantry divisions, and I do not think all hon. Members are aware that those four Regular divisions in this country, with those units belonging to the Royal Tank Corps and the Guards, are composed of an instructing cadre and recruits, and until the month of August they are not in a fit condition to take the field. On mobilisation, they are all under strength, and they have to take in a large number of reservists. Those reservists have not had any opportunity or chance up to now—the right hon. Gentleman is giving some of them the chance this year —of learning the very intricate forms which military operations have taken and the working of the many new technical developments, including machinery, that have come into the Army. That is the case with the four Regular divisions. There is no question of their being able to sail straight away, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said the Expeditionary Force did in 1914, armed to the teeth—for South Africa—with two machine guns per battalion, one battery of guns per brigade and no high explosive shells. These divisions will be armed in a more modern way, but they will not, I take it, be ready to sail so promptly relatively as did the Expeditionary Force in 1914.
Then, when we come to the 12 Territorial infantry divisions, they also are much under strength, because we must remember that in making up the numbers of the Territorial Army I think my right hon. Friend has added the new anti-aircraft formations, which, of course, swell the Territorials very considerably, but with a very different type of men, undertaking home service only. Also he has included yeomanry regiments, which in many cases have recruited up to 30 per cent. over strength. They have not got the equipment or the horses or mechanisation or equipment or pay up to 30 per cent. over strength, but they have recruited in most cases up to 30 per cent. over strength. The infantry divisions, however, are still very much under strength, and they have as yet had no opportunity whatever of training with the modern equipment.
The right hon. Member for Epping was quite correct in that respect, but I

think he was not quite fair in blaming the Government for that, as though they could by a Cabinet decision at any time suddenly equip the whole Territorial Army. The reason why they are not equipped is because their equipment was not ready. First of all, there was the design, and then trying out pilot models—it was the same story as in the Air Force—and then at last comes production of the various weapons and their issue to the troops. It has not been possible to do it yet, and so one must remember that these 12 infantry divisions in the Territorial Army have got four machine guns per battalion, or two more than they had in 1914. They have had no training with automatic rifles at all, and their whole field training is in a very elementary condition.
As far as materal is concerned, I will not say very much, but we must remember that artillery is the next most important thing to infantry; and is my right hon. Friend content that we have our full quota of artillery per division in comparison with what foreign nations undoubtedly have? I am told that the German Army produces 9-inch guns, not howitzers, to the front line, and the first things you meet when you meet a German army are heavy shells coming down on to the back areas, for they have so increased heavy artillery's mobility that they can keep it right up with the advance guard. As far as machine guns, the next most important thing, are concerned, we have been told that the Bren gun is now being turned out in quantity, that the Regular Army will soon be equipped, and that the Territorials will have a chance of seeing what it looks like in the near future. But let me remind my right hon. Friend that the Bren gun is not a light machine gun, but an automatic rifle, and if he says, "No" to that, I would ask him how many rounds the Bren gun can fire before the barrel has to be changed owing to being hot, and how many rounds it can fire without the lining of the barrel getting worn. When my right hon. Friend tells me the figures, I would remind him that the German light machine gun has the same barrel that they use for the heavy machine gun. It is the same weapon, except that it has a different mounting. It can fire without pause one belt of ammunition automatic fire before the barrel has to be changed, and it takes less


time to change the barrel than it does to put in the fresh belt. That is the difference between a light machine gun and an automatic rifle; although I admit that the Bren gun is undoubtedly the best automatic rifle that has been produced.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) mentioned Army co-operation aircraft. I understand that there are seven Regular and two Auxiliary Army co-operation squadrons. Under the new scheme, they will have to be increased to at least 25, and when I say that I am allowing for reconnaissance alone. There is also the question of artillery conveying craft. There will have to be a far greater number of artillery machines if we are to reach foreign standards, and more fighters to protect them and more medium bombers to implement and supplement the artillery scheme, and all of them will have to be produced. This must be done in co-operation with the Royal Air Force and will mean considerable further expansion of their Estimates.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) was quite right in his conclusion when he said, with regard to the sending of troops to France, that he hoped that the Maginot Line would hold and give us time to know when and where to send an expeditionary force, and in what numbers. I believe that the Maginot Line could hold out. The only thing that could break it would be some new tactics, such as parachute-jumping en masse, a new form of explosive, or some chemical which has not been discovered so far. If Germany or any other nation evolved such a new form of tactics, it would be fatal for us to send an expeditionary force to fight them until we had evolved a similar form of tactics or some counter measures to defeat it. It seems to me further that it would be impossible for us to send an expeditionary force to France until we had got supremacy in the air. Lord Allenby refused to take command in Palestine until he was assured that he would have supremacy in artillery, in the air and in cavalry—cavalry including whatever vehicles one puts the cavalry on, camels, horses, mules, motors or tanks. One must have supremacy in cavalry, in artillery and in the air; otherwise it is useless to put an army into the field, unless one wants it to be defeated or to hang on by the skin of its teeth to a

position like Gallipoli that has to be abandoned later.
With regard to the armoured Divisions, I understand that there are two Regular Divisions and that one Territorial Division is to be formed; and that there is one Regular Division also not completed. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what is their role, because so far that has not been laid down. I have attended the manoeuvres for the last 17 years, and it has seemed to me that as a rule the Royal Tank Corps units career around country which they knew pretty well, then conceal themselves in a wood during the day time, hoping the Air Force will not spot them—generally the Air Force do not, because very few enemy aircraft appear during manoeuvres—and during the night they move up to a strategic position in time to take off for the grand finale, the charge of tanks at some place where the right hon. Gentleman and other notabilities, the Press correspondents and foreign attachésare gathered to witness the final charge, two-pounders banging, machine guns chattering and lots of noise and smoke—all done in very much the same manner as the Kaiser's cavalry charges before the War. It is magnificent but not war. Such gallant shock actions are very nice at manoeuvres, but they are impossible in the field.
Then there are the cavalry tanks, the role of which has always been that of tactical reconnaissance. Usually they are sent on before the troops to find out whether certain river crossings are held, and they always are held; and then the cavalry tanks are put away in a wood and forgotten for the rest of the battle. I have often had sad misgivings about this form of tactical reconnaissance. A troop of light tanks trundles down a track, and presently they meet an anti-tank gun; bang goes the gun, putting out of action one tank, and then the other tanks go back and report that one anti-tank gun was met. It is not safe to move the Mark VI light tank across country. It gets held up by almost any ditch or bog, and its tracks show up very plainly from the air.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend has plenty of information about the use of tanks in the wars that are taking place in the world at the present time. We spend a great deal of money on the


Secret Service and we have military attaches, and I am sure that they must be giving the right hon. Gentleman some information. I wonder whether that information goes right to the fountain head, because if it does, I wonder whether it ought not to be reflected in the purchases of the Supply Board. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will say that he gets the information, but can he tell me what is the composition and nature of the units used by General Franco, first, for strategic reconnaissance, and secondly, for tactical reconnaissance? I should like to know what kind of forces are used for those very important cavalry operations. My information, which may be erroneous, is that the independent role of the tanks is finished. There is no more shock actions, none of those glorious manoeuvres that are written up so ably by the military correspondent of the "Times" or by Colonel Fuller. Apparently, they do not even use tanks unsupported against a fleeing enemy. When the enemy's ranks are broken through and the enemy is in full flight they only put light tanks on to pursue the enemy, when they have considerable numbers of cavalry with them. This does not mean that the role of tanks is finished, for there are plenty of things for them to do. I am told that the Italian two-men light tank is used as an armoured machine gun closely supporting the infantry and advancing with it. It gives mobile and protected fire support to infantry. That is the role of the Italian light tank. The heavy tanks many of them captured Russian tanks, are fitted with.75 guns and are used as a mobile and protected artillery, but are always fired, as artillery, from halt. When they are fired on the move, accuracy is not easily attained.
The light German tank has been found to be a failure, except that it has recently been sent along with the cavalry in pursuit of a demoralised and fleeing enemy, or in support of mounted formations on reconnaissance missions. That is my information, and the right hon. Gentleman can tell me whether it is right or wrong. Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings comes truth and wisdom sometimes. About two years ago, my boy brought home a good story from school. The German secret service had stolen the drawings of our latest tank, the pet of Farnborough and a hush hush, and had taken them to Herr Hitler. Herr Hitler

looked through the drawings and then said, "The English are the people who invented the tanks, they have gone on improving them ever since, and no doubt this is the best tank at the present time." Thereupon, like Lord Swinton, he ordered 1,000 of them off the drawing board. The following year there was a parade at Nuremburg, and the 1,000 tanks marched in beautiful order past the royal box; and Herr Hitler turned round to congratulate the commander of the tank brigade, saying, "Splendid, now let me see them go all out"; and the commander said, "Heil Hitler, they are going all out." Shortly afterwards, a deputation came from General Franco asking for technical assistance, and among other things they asked for a few tanks, say, 150 or 200. They were told, "You can have 1,000, take them." I have since found out that that story was true! The tank was the Mark IV which the War Office tried out, but finding its limitations in speed, the order was immediately stopped; but the contract had to be completed of course, and so this type of tank is now being issued to the Territorial Army. The Haig Statue outside Whitehall appears to me symbolical of the production of many forms of A.F.V.
There is one further thing I would like to say about the Mark VI tank. Tracks made by tanks over virgin soil can be most easily perceived from aircraft. It is very difficult from the air to see troops once they are deployed, and it is difficult to find even transport when they are at the halt, and taking cover, but it is easy to find tanks, even when they are "harboured" in a wood, because the tracks on the virgin soil stand out so clearly. That is one of the reasons why tanks prefer to keep to worn tracks if they can.
With regard to armoured cars, I think that a satisfactory armoured car ought to have been developed by now. I believe that the Indian Government have taken the very satisfactory body of the Rolls armoured car and fitted it on to an American chassis. The Lincoln Zephyr is, I believe, the best motor on the market, but there are others. The important thing is to give a little more room in the armoured car. There must be room for a crew of at least four, and if possible, five. Some of the new armoured cars have room only for a crew of three, and no room for tools, kit, blankets, rations, water, explosives and the many other


things that have to be carried by cars out for days on distant missions. One of the crew has to be a wireless operator, which leaves two, and if one of them is knocked out, the crew is only one. There ought to be room for at least four, and if possible, five.
My right hon. Friend has referred to the question of dress. In the case of the four mechanised units, I hope he will do away with the webbing equipment, which so easily becomes covered with oil. In the Tank Corps, they have two sets of webbing equipment for every man, one for use in the tank and one for use on parade. Leather would be much better. With regard to hats, I suggest that, as in the mechanised forces of France, Germany and every other country, all ranks should be allowed to have crash helmets. In the small cars, it is easy for a man to bump his head, and in the new sort of cruiser tank, I imagine he must bump his head every other minute of the day, and unless he has a crash helmet, it is very unpleasant. As to the fore-and-aft hat, it will be interesting to see how it is developed. I ask my right hon. Friend to allow a certain amount of individuality in the different units. If the whole Army is dressed alike, it will simply cause discontent in some portion of it. The Royal Engineers do not like to dress in the same way as the Grenadier Guards, nor Highlanders as cavalry. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might leave to the various units some initiative in the development of their own forms of dress, both as regards uniform and hats, and allow them to decide what is most suited to them.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley spoke of the democratisation of the Army—whatever that may be. Let me express the hope that it will start from the top. I would like to see the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and his two Under-Secretaries going among the troops and mixing freely with them on manoeuvres. Since I have been in the Army I think only one Under-Secretary, or Financial Secretary to the War Office has visited the troops on manoeuvres. That was Lord De La Warr, who used to visit every unit in turn driving his own car. I would suggest that during August and September the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Under-Secretary and the Financial Secretary, should visit units of

each arm in turn, both Territorial and Regular units, and become acquainted with Army problems from the inside. It would perhaps be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman himself to do so incognito, because his face is so well-known from photographs in the Press that he would, no doubt, be recognised and when he presented himself the sentry would turn out the guard. But I understand that both the Under-Secretary and the Financial Secretary are Territorials or reservists and could go in uniform. Let them then visit the various units on manoeuvres and see the work of the Army from the inside. They would learn a great deal and the troops would like it immensely. I hope that the seeds which I have endeavoured to sow will not fall on barren ground, and I conclude by once more congratulating the right hon. Gentleman.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Lawson: I regret that in accordance with the arranged time-table, I must intervene at this stage, and I fear I shall interfere with certain hon. Members opposite who would like to have spoken. I am aware that this is one of the few opportunities which they get of speaking upon matters in which they are vitally interested, and it seems to me that we should have at least a full day for the Report stage of these Estimates. That is all the more necessary at the present time, because of the very important issues which are involved. My right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) put several questions to the Secretary of State upon the wider aspects of these Estimates. I desire to deal with some of the more immediately practical questions which are raised by them. I understand that the Secretary of State has given orders to Army instructors to cut out lectures about mechanism and to teach the recruit how to load, to aim and to fire. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must have broken the hearts, and probably the spirit, of quite a number of good sergeants by hindering them from doing their stuff, but there are some other matters arising out of these Estimates in which I feel that similar action would be required.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) touched upon the question of the supply of ordnance, munitions and all the rest of it for the 19 divisions. Speaking as a more humble


Member of this House, without the right hon. Gentleman's experience of the War Office and other Departments, I must say that question seemed to me to stand out from the Estimates. Is the War Office to-day able to carry out the work of organisation necessary to equip and maintain the force which the right hon. Gentleman has visualised over any period of time? I was all the more struck by that question when I recalled the speech which the Secretary of State made in November last. Many hon. Members have to-day complimented the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish to open old sores, but I think it important in relation to the whole question of organisation present and future to look back to what happened. The House will remember that the right hon. Gentleman in November told us that in connection with the events of a short time previously guns were sent from practice camps in some instances separated from their instruments and that some were sent into action without overhaul. He said that some were issued without dials because the makers had failed to supply the dials—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. Lawson: I was referring to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in November dealing with lack of organisation in which he said that guns had been issued without dials because the makers had failed to deliver them, and I understand that the War Office, or those responsible, did not know that the company had gone out of action. The right hon. Gentleman also told us on that occasion that some predictors were out of order, that electric storage batteries in some cases had run down and that there were other shortcomings which he laid bare to the House. I think he showed considerable courage in making that statement to the House. Apparently he did it in a "Tell the truth and shame the devil" frame of mind. I do not know what his object was. It may have been to frighten the Supply Board or to stir up the Coordination Department, but the right hon. Gentleman evidently made up his mind to tell the truth, and he did so with the result, as I say, that some very serious shortcomings were disclosed.
That was in connection with the mobilisation of 50,000 Land Forces for

defence. Are we sure that the same thing in another form would not happen if we had to mobilise these 19 divisions? I want the right hon. Gentleman to mark the fact, that on that occasion it was not so much a question of material or equipment being short, as of want of organisation. Is he sure that that is not merely one aspect of the kind of thing which may occur again if the War Office continues to deal with the Army itself, and at the same time has to deal with questions of guns, munitions, and so forth? I wonder whether the House realises that in the last two or three years the War Office staff has increased from 3,168 to 3,780, and that there are now no fewer than eight important officers who represent very important branches of that Department. There is a Director-General of Munitions Production, a Director of Army Contracts, a Director of Ordnance Factories, a Director of Industrial Planning, a Director of Scientific Research, a Director of Medical Services, an Inspector of Army Ordnance Services, an Inspector of Artillery, an Inspector of Mechanisation, and so on. This gives an idea of the development which has taken place in the last couple of years. There are no fewer than 12 new Ordnance factories in the country. What is the plan with reference to these factories? Are they based on Woolwich? Has the Director of Industrial Planning any plan for using these factories as the nucleus of an organisation, to be developed if necessary? I know there is a special board of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, but the fact remains that the whole organisation for the supply of munitions, not only for the Army, but for the Air Force and the Navy, is within the four corners of the War Office organisation. They have to deal with tanks as well, and those who were at Aldershot know the tremendous change that has swiftly taken place not only in tanks, but in carriers and other things.
That is only one side of War Office work. The changes that have taken place owing to the mechanisation of the Army are so swift that I venture to say that a soldier who was discharged 12 months ago and came back would not know the Army now. The serving soldier himself is much puzzled by the rapid changes that are taking place, and must necessarily take place. The War Office have to deal with the Army in a time of change


and development when new forms of strategy and new problems are being presented to them, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is sure that the War Office as organised to-day can meet the needs of the Army and of the supply side at the same time. I have not spoken on the question of a Ministry of Supply, but one has only to take a casual look at the Estimates and see all the branches of the service of supply in order to see clearly that there is a definite need for some organisation to take a grip of the supply side so as to leave the War Office to do its own job, which is to look after the Army. I am not making any criticism of the War Office as such. I was a Financial Secretary at one time, and I went down now and then to see the other ranks. It was a habit we had of getting about. I know that the War Office is not by any means inside the kind of institution which a good many people outside like to think it is. I had something to do with the various branches of the organisation when I was there, and I was an employer of some 30,000 men. I used to have deputations come to me, and it was an interesting experiense.
I can say that the War Office in normal times is as efficient as a great organisation of that kind could possibly be, but in an abnormal situation such as we have to-day I doubt whether it can carry out both sides of the organisation which is represented in these Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman has talked about giving a refresher course to soldiers to get them more into touch and into practice with the present arms. Is the right hon. Gentleman arranging for refresher courses for his technicians as well, because I am sure that unless they keep themselves refreshed the present organisation of the Army on its arms side will become stereotyped and we shall have a repetition of such a situation as that which developed with regard to tanks about which an hon. Gentleman opposite spoke. If we compare the armoured units with those of a few years ago the latter were as different as was the feudal system from the present day. Anyone can see clearly that unless there is a determined attempt to keep pace, the mechanised army will soon become something worthy of a museum. I take it that that is what the Prime Minister was referring to when he said that the maintenance of the armed forces

to-day was heavier than it ever was before.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the position of the Territorials. I do not want to make too much of it, but it is necessary that one should ask about it. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that many units of the Territorials wondered why they were not called out when the 50,000 were called out in September, and he said that he would make arrangements for the whole of the Territorials to be called out in future. That means that in future, if unfortunately they should be needed, the whole of the Territorials would be called out before the Regulars. He also said that most of the Territorials had signed on for general service, and he was going to ask the House for power to make that general. Have proper steps been taken to consult with the men concerned on this matter? They ought to know that they are signing on for general service without limit, and that they will be called up first. The right hon. Gentleman might consider some system of making compensation to men who are called up in this way. I understood him to say that the jobs of the men who were called up in September were guaranteed and that there was no trouble about it. Could he consider some system so that not only will the men in the Territorials have their posts guaranteed when they are called up, but that they shall have some some compensation for loss of wages? If there is a crisis which does not develop and Territorials are called up before the Regulars, there should be some consideration in the direction I have indicated.
My last point concerns the cost of the battle dress. The right hon. Gentleman said £400,000 was to be spent on this new dress. How many troops will that expenditure supply with the new dress, and what is the cost per dress. I think he can tell us that, because it will not be giving anything away to the enemy. I ask him more particularly because the War Office abandoned the old Army Clothing Factory. I thought at the time they made a very great mistake, and I think they would now probably say so themselves, in the light of present experience. I should like to know the number of troops to be clothed with this new dress, how much per dress is the cost, and who has the contract. I asked the


right hon. Gentleman last week about warlike stores and whether he could tell us anything about them—I do not know— but there is an uncomfortable feeling that some people are making profits and becoming rich out of rearmament.
There is one word written over the whole of these Service Estimates—the Estimates before us, the Air Force Estimates last week and the Naval Estimates. So far I have not raised the question of policy, but it is clear there is a profound difference of policy between the Government and ourselves. The one word written over the whole of these Estimates is "Munich." The Government cannot avoid it. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept that view he has only to look at the speeches made last year by the various Service Ministers and compare them with the speeches which are being made now. The whole defence policy of the Government, its whole outlook, has been altered. I do not wish to spend any time over that, except to say that I believe profoundly that the time has arrived when, if we would defend our own institutions efficiently, if we would render a real service to the world, the offer set forth by President Roosevelt for a world conference should be given serious consideration by this Government. As I said last week, we on this side do not vote against these Estimates. We understand clearly what is at stake. We are under no illusions about it. But we do think that if the Government would save the world from an impending catastrophe, if it would ensure that freedom and liberty which we all desire, it is the business of the Government—and there is no other policy which will satisfy us—to rally the democratic forces of the world and to answer the call of President Roosevelt by entering a world conference.

8.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): It now becomes my duty to sum up the discussion which has ranged over two days, or, at any rate, that part of the discussion which excludes the Debate upon the Amendment which was so ably Moved and Seconded by my hon. and gallant Friends the Member for Totnes (Major Rayner) and the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby). A great multiplicity of topics has been raised, and I am torn between two conflicting desires, the one to do justice to

the weighty utterances, and the other to keep my remarks within that compass which is considered reasonable in one who is addressing the House from this Bench. To give a complete examination to any one of the subjects which have interested the House during these two days would be quite impossible, and if I appear to deal cursorily with the speech of any hon. Member it is not because I under-estimate its merits, but because time places a certain restraint upon me. I will, however, undertake, should I omit to give the full particulars that may be desired in any given case, to do what I did last year, and to send in writing the complete information that has been requested.
No Debate could have illustrated better the good will which is felt towards the Army. That is an encouragement to the Army and a strengthening to the country. It really does seem that we have in regard to the Army a policy which unites the whole House. It was my endeavour in the speech which I made when introducing the Army Estimates last week to put before the House a consistent theme. The first obligation of the Army I stated to be home defence, and I am glad to notice that there is a general feeling that our arrangements in this direction are satisfactorily progressing. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) paid generous testimony to this. He and I were recently considered to be protagonists in a controversy which was a distraction from our main purpose. The course which I took was naturally inspired by a desire to preserve the best interests of my Department and the best interests of the State. His motive, I am sure, was similarly objective. What happened showed that, contrary to the common adage, two rights can sometimes make a wrong. I have been asked however, despite the prevailing view that no criticism is to be made of this branch of our activities, a number of specific questions, some of them by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). He inquired what arrangements were made for target practice, and whether it was true that units had to pay for engaging their own aircraft. It is, of course, not the case that units have to pay for their own aircraft.

Mr. Mander: Never?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Never. Certainly not.

Mr. Mander: In that case, if my right hon. Friend will be good enough to allow me to bring to his attention certain cases in which complaints of this kind have been made, perhaps he will look into them.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Naturally, by all means; I shall be only too glad to look into any complaint at any time. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the Air Ministry arranges by contract with civil firms for sufficient hours of daylight flying to provide adequate preliminary training for all anti-aircraft units and that no charge for so doing will be made, or has been made in the past, upon unit funds. Perhaps my hon. Friend is in possession of particulars of a case in which by some chance payment has been demanded and by some folly the demand has been met. If he will give me particulars I will certainly give them attention.

Mr. Mander: It relates to the hire of civil aircraft.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, I fully appreciated the hon. Gentleman's point and I hoped that I had answered it. The hon. Gentleman also informed the House that certain firms in the Midlands were sceptical as to the existence of the dungaree army, or the man-your-own-works scheme. I must explain to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he in turn will explain to the firms who have addressed their complaints to him, that the deciding factor in selecting this anti-aircraft protection is not the wish of the firm to protect itself, but the importance of the firm to the nation's war organisation. Furthermore, the premises of many firms are covered by the general defences and against low flying attack by the balloon barrage. I should indeed be sorry if the War Office failed in any way to answer any representation by particular firms for participation in this scheme. We have had a large number of inquiries and we have answered them in all cases.
When I introduced the scheme I appealed to firms to refrain from making these requests, because the selection of firms is made upon a general tactical principle, which might not be understood by the firms but is well understood by the directive at the War Office. The hon. Gentleman will recall that there has

already been a camp for this dungaree army and that its existence is quite numerously in evidence. I do not know whether there were any other points which the hon. Gentleman had in mind about anti-aircraft. I see he shakes his head, but I think there was one on the question of the relations between the Air Ministry and the War Office. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the way down the hierarchy there is correspondence between the military command and the air command and that it is our desire to work in the closest harmony and co-operation.
The hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat and who has addressed the House twice from a store of knowledge and experience upon these subjects, in which he once participated, made a reference to the calling up of the Territorials last September. I had not intended to refer to this matter, because nobody in the Debate had hitherto done so. I would ask the House to realise, as the matter has now been raised, that a very short time has elapsed since the public satisfied itself as to the importance of ground defence against air attack. In 1935, when my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Duff Cooper) introduced the Army Estimates, he had to complain that the anti-aircraft part of the Territorial Army was little known and the necessity for its existence was little appreciated. Two years ago, when he again introduced the Estimates, in 1937, he had to say that he could not get recruits for the first antiaircraft division which was then in existence and the second which it was desired to form. That was only two years ago. I want to tell the House, because it desires to be just and to put all matters into perspective, that when my right hon. Friend made the first speech from which I have quoted there were only 100 guns, all 3–inch, in this country, 100 searchlights and 3,500 personnel.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Was that the Regular Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am speaking only of anti-aircraft defence by the Territorials to whom the defence has been entrusted. What I am thinking is that the progress has been rapid and sudden. It was not expected that this country should provide a full defence until the completion of the programme. It is not fair to judge the matter as though anybody was to blame.
The British public was not sufficiently interested to provide the recruits at that time, but since then there have been technical developments which have given greater confidence to those who believe in this kind of defence, which was at one time ridiculed in the public Press, and doubted in the Debates in this House and generally. There have been technical developments and there has been an awakening of the public consciousness, but it is all very recent.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a statement which I made as candid. I hope it was candid, because I intended that it should be. The statement has been referred to as containing revelations, but they were not revelations. It was a statement about matters of which the public was fully acquainted. The gist of the whole subject is that the basic equipment of the anti-aircraft units was there and was in order, and that the disorder and disarray, if such a description must be used, occurred in trying to supplement that equipment from sources from which it would not normally be supplied. All those defects, serious and important as they are, must not be minimised, but they were all of a transitory kind. Those are not matters which we are incapable of rectifying. They all arose because the state of the programme did not permit of our making a greater effort. However, we must do everything possible to avoid any repetition of the shortcomings, and I think I have shown the House in the opening speech which I made that we are taking this matter very seriously and have made a very large number of improvements.

Mr. Lawson: There is a rather important point connected with this. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the question why the War Office did not know that a certain company was not in a position to deliver the goods. It has gone out of action since.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: In his speech the hon. Gentleman said that we did not know that the company making the dials had gone out of business. We did know, just before the crisis, but there was no possibility of remedying the deficiency in the short time at our disposal. I hope that once again history will refrain from repeating itself.
The second principle which I examined in my speech in introducing the Army

Estimates concerned ports abroad. I am glad to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) gives his approval to that policy, which, indeed, as he told us, he has advocated, despite much resistance, for many years past. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. W. Astor), in a well-informed speech, for he knows these localities, made suggestions for the defence of certain garrisons, notably that at Malta, and I am glad to tell him that we are acting on the lines which he has laid down to-night.
The next section of my speech—for I am following the same order as before— related to the allocation of available troops to mobile units, and under this head I referred to the Middle East Reserve. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was anxious to know, because he interrupted me when I was making my speech, whether this Reserve would be provided with stores of food, vehicles, and munitions, and with reserves of men. The answer, of course, is in the affirmative, for it is intended that this force, within the possible limits, should be self-sufficient. As I have referred to the right hon. Gentleman, and shall presently be referring to him again, I would like to inform the House that he told me that he had an engagement which would prevent him from hearing my reply to certain other questions which he addressed to me.
I came then to the field force at home, and I am glad to find that this aspect of our policy also is approved. I should like to say at once how moved I was by the magnanimous references which my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's made to what I had said. He told the House that he felt a pang the acuity of which I should be the first to realise. That is indeed the case, and I would that fate had permitted that we could have changed places, for, if any right hon. Gentleman deserved to make proposals connected with a field force, it was my right hon. Friend, who strove for so long to obtain consent for such a policy. I have described the size of the force; I have described how it will be equipped and trained; and I have told the House that it will be prepared for a European theatre. I have also endeavoured to explain to the House that its departure would be in echelon, and


why the necessities connected with shipping impose this method of departure upon us. I have told the House everything that I reasonably can tell it about the field force, and it was natural that my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's should say that he really did not think that the House should ask for more. Nevertheless, some questions have been addressed to me.
For instance, there was a question by the right hon. Gentleman who closed the last Debate and opened this one, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), whose speech was interesting and informative on all the points on which it touched. He wanted to know whether a Territorial contingent would be ready, or whether it was our intention in this plan to make it ready, within, as he put it, say six months. I hope the House is not going to press me to publish, in, as it were, a kind of Bradshaw for the reference of the world, the dates of the possible departure of our field force, but I can, if it would satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, as his question was vague, say that it would be possible within our intentions for a contingent of Territorials to be able to operate within that time. That will indicate to the House that we are taking the matter seriously.
I recognise, no man more, that the essence of our effort depends upon production. The strength of the British Army is not only in Aldershot and on Salisbury Plain; it is in Woolwich and in Nottingham. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping made a powerful speech explaining to the House that, if you were to put more men in the field, you would naturally have to have a greater productive capacity. That is not a conclusion from which I dissent. I would like to say, in passing, that the right hon. Gentleman carries the blunderbuss and the olive branch with equal grace. Sometimes he bears those offerings to his victims simultaneously. I do, however, on this occasion take the olive branch with real gratitude. He wanted to be satisfied that the Government have devoted their attention to this important subject of production. It will, of course, be necessary, in order that our plans may be carried out, to expand our productive capacity quite considerably and to place additional orders

Mr. Davidson: You might even come to Scotland.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That would be a possibility, although movement is generally in the opposite direction. While I am speaking of production, perhaps I may refer to a subject, or rather, an object, which arouses some feeling. The object in this case is the Bren gun. The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), who is always stimulating, stimulated me also when he spoke on a previous occasion. I do not want to be so stimulated on this occasion, for I still have a little twig of the olive branch which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping handed to me this afternoon, and I would like to keep it for the hon. and gallant Member. Everyone realises at the War Office that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has an interest in and a knowledge of this matter. He has been in touch with us about it; he has had conversations with a senior officer of my Department; and I am sorry that we have not been able to satisfy him. The Bren gun is not a water-cooled gun, if he will allow me to say so. It is a gun which is cooled by changing the barrel, or rather, in which cooling becomes unnecessary because you can change the barrel; and there is experience of the gun in action outside China—there is experience in Palestine. In the opinion of my advisers, the gun is the best obtainable. I do not want to force that view upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because he has spent most of his life in one of the Services, and he understands these matters better than I do; but that is the advice which I received. It so happens that we now have literally thousands of these guns in issue, and, even if we should have been wiser in the past to take the Farquhar gun or some other gun, I do not think that even the hon. and gallant Gentleman would recommend our going back on the decision we have taken, seeing that the gun is now in such great production.
If there is anything in the system at the War Office—and this is an old matter which he very kindly said was before my time—which he thinks could be improved, I am the first person to desire to benefit by his constructive suggestions. We have tried to make improvements by the examination of inventions. In co-operation


with the Director of Scientific Research, we try to devote as much care to the examination of what is offered to us as is possible at a time like this, when there is so much invention offered and each invention requires so much examination. But I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be reconciled to the use of this gun, because it would be so difficult to scrap it now. He did see it, I believe, at Aldershot, and while he was not absolutely satisfied, he will no doubt agree that it was efficient.

Captain P. Macdonald: There were two Bren guns shown there. There was the Czecho-Slovak Bren gun and the Vickers Bren gun. Which of these two models is in production at the present time?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not understand my hon. and gallant Friend. We are producing this gun in our own factory in thousands, and equipping all the Regular battalions completely. This is not a gun which we have imported; it is a gun that we are manufacturing here.

Captain Macdonald: We were shown two guns. One is the Vickers gun, improved on in this country, and the other the original model Bren gun.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It is quite true that the original model did come from Czechoslovakia. It is now produced here. I think I ought to mention my Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) in connection with machine-guns, because he made his points with so much rapidity that they seemed to be like automatic fire, and I must be pardoned if I did not even have time to note down all of them. I think he understands that, because he said he would exonerate me if I did not answer them this afternoon. However, I am told that we have no information that the Germans are using a 9–inch gun in the front line, and we do not believe it. I am sorry that our intelligence reports conflict with my Noble Friend's information. It is quite possible that he has brought us some valuable information, but we do not believe that that is the case. It is not very easy to take the lessons of Spain and apply them to a major war, but we have the information about Spain which he doubted.

Lord Apsley: My right hon. Friend said he would send in writing some of the

rather important points. Will he send that information on paper?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I will look at the information before sending it, but I am anxious to give my Noble Friend such information as I can provided it is considered to be reasonably accurate. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) wanted to know whether there was an allotment of medium and field artillery for corps troops and heavy and medium artillery for general headquarters. The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. Bellenger: No, my point was as to whether the regular expeditionary force would be adequately supplied.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: My answer was intended to cover that. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) wanted to know whether all our factories were controlled from Woolwich. They are not. Each has an independent superintendent reporting direct to the Director of Ordnance Factories. I pass from details for a moment to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley, a speech which, in this particular, was subsequently reinforced by that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. Obviously, the use of aircraft in connection with armies is important. The air component of the field force includes a definite allotment of fighter squadrons which has been agreed between the War Office and the Air Ministry. In addition to the protection provided by the fighter squadrons of the air contingent operations of our own air forces outside the field force component and of allied forces, would naturally afford general protection. This, of course, is over and above the army co-operation squadrons which have been allotted to us. I would not like to leave the impression on the mind of the two right hon. Gentlemen that we underestimate in any way the need for the development of air co-operation of every kind, including fighter squadrons with the Army, and I can assure them that the matter will have our continuing attention.
I was asked a number of questions— while we are on the subject of the field force—by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. He asked me—if I may brush this question aside quickly—whether I was satisfied that the War Office staff was functioning properly, and he was joined


in that question by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor). We have made a number of changes in War Office organisation which have been announced in the House from time to time, and they are producing satisfactory results. With regard to the division between the civil and military staffs, it was the intention when the Permanent Undersecretary was made a member of the Army Council, to cement ever more closely the civil and the military sides That is the ideal to which we seek to conform, and to which I hope we do conform.

Mr. Lawson: Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that if, unfortunately, we should get into a conflict the present organisation for the provision of ammunition, ordnance and the rest of it would be easily expanded by the War Office?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That, of course, is our aim, and towards the end of my speech of last week the hon. Gentleman will find the principle on which we are proceeding. It would naturally be our intention to maintain in the field any troops we sent there. That is the goal at which we aim, and which we are more and more rapidly reaching. I was also asked whether our mechanical organisation was sufficiently flexible, and whether it was not a pity that the horse cavalry regiments had been reduced in number. The question was first asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) who claimed as his title to ask the question that he was an honorary colonel commandant of Marines. We have, in addition, to the two regular horsed cavalry regiments of the line, the Life Guards and Royal Horse Guards. These with the 16 yeomanry regiments provide us with a sufficient proportion of horsed units, and so I hope we are not under-horsed.
In the course of my speech I endeavoured to show that our military system was a balanced one. Nevertheless, suggestions have been made in the course of the Debate from many quarters that it might with advantage be modified or extended in some directions, but all these suggestions would have the effect of interfering with the equilibrium. The essence of our system is that we should have troops here who are interchangeable with

troops in garrisons abroad. Our system, it might be said, is comparable with a revolving wheel. If you add another little wheel in the shape of an Imperial gendarmerie, as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Lieut.-Colonel Macnamara) in the very comprehensive speech he made, which does not drive any other part of the machinery, you are doing something which is not of real benefit to your organisation. And the same applies to a foreign legion. This Imperial gendarmerie would be engaged upon different terms of service. The men would be kept to an older age, I understand, and the problem of marriage would be a further complication. The Regular Army would be deprived of some of its training experience in foreign countries. Of course much depends on where you put the force, but the place generally mentioned is India. You would have to consult the Government of India, which in fact we have done, and the Indian Government rejected this proposal.
A foreign legion raises similar if not greater difficulties. One desires to offer refuge and employment to those whom my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Georges described as unhappy people who have a martial spirit. One would like to do anything one could to utilise their services. It is true, as he said, that since the time of Alcibiades nations have relied in war on troops which were not of their own nationality. That is in war, but where should we use these people in peace? Would you send Spaniards to Gibraltar to hold Gibraltar? Would you send Italians to Malta? These nationals would be within your legion. Would the Indian Government consent to have a mixed body of troops in replacement of the troops which it has now, either from this country or from within its own borders? There are real difficulties which present themselves. You could not run your present Imperial system by the aid of a foreign legion without running grave risks, and you have to remember that the British soldier is an ambassador from this country, who promotes and maintains good relations on behalf of this country with other parts of the Empire, and it is doubtful whether a foreign legion would serve the same purpose. I hope, when I say that, my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Georges will not think that I am unsympathetic, because it would be pleasing to me if I could say, "We could


fit it in here or we could fit it in there," but the fact is I do not see where we could place it under our present system.
The same needs which require inter-changeability in our forces also impose upon us the necessity of having a shorter term of service. Naturally it is far more attractive to ask a man to join the Army for two years than it is to ask him to join it for seven, but you could not maintain your foreign drafts if you had only two years' service, because by the time the man had gone abroad he would be due to come home. While these suggestions are most attractive, they are not easy to accept, unless you revise the whole of our military system, which is not a simple matter, particularly in these times. If you could reduce the amount of time the soldier had to spend abroad you could reduce your term of enlistment, and it is with that end in view that the Government approved this year a reduction of service in India to a normal period of four years instead of 5½, as it now is. Any reduction you can make in the service abroad will help you to make a reduction in your term of service, but every time you reduce your term of service you have to have more recruits. If you were to reduce the present seven years with the Colours to five years with the Colours, you would have to enlist each year two-sevenths more recruits than you enlist now. That means 12,000 recruits more per annum would be required if you reduced the present period from seven to five years. I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford and others who made these suggestions will see that the problem is by no means simple in character.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reduction of the period of service in India to 4½ years will also apply to the Army in other parts of the world, such as the West Indies and Singapore, or does it only apply to India?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: They will not do more than four years anywhere, but India is where they do the longest service. The greater proportion of our forces abroad is there.
Some references were made to the Annual Report on Recruiting, and comment was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker)

on some omissions which we have made this year as compared with last. In order to make the document more readable and get it out more quickly, so that it is closer to the period to which it refers than formerly, we have left out a number of tables, which were extremely dull except to those with exceptionally inquisitive minds. They can be satisfied if their Members of Parliament will address questions to me, when I will always furnish the additional information, but the smaller document has proved far more popular than the old.
The same hon. Member, I think, approved this contraction of the volume and its better presentation. He said, "You have 40,000 recruits. How many applications did you have?" I can give him that figure. We had in 1938, 61,552 applications to join the Army as compared with 52,147 in the previous year. That is a great increase in the number of applications made, but there is a further increase over and above this which is not disclosed in these figures. We have in the past registered everyone as an applicant who wrote a letter or made an inquiry. We have abandoned that system, and it is only those who actually present themselves in person and are registered in the day-book of the recruiting office who are shown as applicants. That change we made last year, and it has been responsible for reducing the number of registered applications by about 20,000, I am told, so that there would be 80,000 applications under the old system, if you want to obtain a comparative figure. We accepted 63.1 per cent. of those who applied, compared with 50 per cent. in the previous year. This led my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) to imagine that we have reduced the physical standards required of a recruit. It is an error to suppose that. We have made no modification in the requirements of the heart or lungs, which motivate the body, or in the height and weight, which give it stature and poise. What we have done is to assist the recruit to overcome minor defects in his physiological condition. That is a social service that we render. For instance, many recruits are short sighted, but do not realise that they are short sighted. We now provide them, at the national cost, with two pairs of spectacles to improve the acuity of their vision, with a stout case in which to hold


the spectacles. This is not a lowering of the physical standard; it is a help to the recruit, who did not know that he needed glasses, to pass the examination.
There was also a strange physiological formula which required the recruit to have not only u sound dental points, as they are called by the faculty, but that those points shall be in a defined juxtaposition one to the other. In looking at our regulations with an endeavour to make them as suitable as possible, I thought that it would be more in the national interest that instead of going through the process of counting the teeth we should give the men dentures at the public expense. That change has been made.

Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend be very careful about this, because there are some dentists who will pull out every tooth, whether sound or not. That is a very serious thing. I hope my right hon. Friend will not give dentures too freely but that he will see that the teeth are filled and kept in the heads of the recruits.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think my Noble Friend is getting her teeth into a very important matter. I quite agree with her that it would be most regrettable if dentists were allowed to pull out sound teeth just because it was the particular theory at the time to do so. That is not our intention, and I hope that the warning that my Noble Friend has given will deter any dentist from that unjustifiable practice. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe went on to say, I quote his words, "that might be all right, but I do not know how they will tackle bully beef when it comes to war." They will tackle it in exactly the same way as the soldiers tackled it in the last War, but with this difference, that they will now have a free set of artificial teeth. In certain cases where recruits can benefit, we perform slight operations. We straighten a toe or take out tonsils, if such operations will make them fit. None of these measures lowers the physical standard in any way.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: When a recruit receives such medical attention, does he immediately enter as a fit A1 man or is he put in a different category?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The recruit has to pass the test, even if he has been at the

physical training depot, which was started by my right hon. Friend and predecessor, and which I have extended. He has to pass the full test, and if he does not reach the required standard as the result of his operation or his training he is rejected. A number of questions were addressed to me about education by the hon. Member for Romford and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Ernest Evans). It is true that a larger number of persons failing to reach standard D were passed into the Army last year than in the previous year, but the Army system of education is such that 90 per cent. of the soldiers in the Army to-day have an educational certificate. It is our practice to give the man education from the day he enters the Army to the day he leaves it. The system was praised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street. There is no other profession which does that for a man.
I was asked many questions about the reserve. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping devoted some portion of his speech to this subject. He was speaking in the context of a period which has passed away. He was speaking of the period when we had a Special Reserve. This kind of reserve was abolished after the War as a result of an inquiry that was made. We have since then been building up the Supplementary Reserve, which consists of units of a technical character composed of men whose peace time avocations correspond with what they will be required to do in war. We have now also an infantry Supplementary Reserve, which is growing in numbers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) emphasised, it is necessary to pay great attention to the reserve position.
The right hon. Member for Epping and to some extent other hon. Members may not have seen what I said about this in my speech. I described the whole method that would be employé for the expansion of the Army, and showed how on the outbreak of war there would only be recruitment into one Army. Enlistment indeed would be into the Territorial Army only. In our view our reserves are sufficient to provide our requirements until the post-mobilisation recruits are trained. I do not, however, wish to express too great


a measure of confidence on this subject. We showed some earnest of our intention to devote great care to the question of reserves when we announced the scheme for calling them up for extra training, a system which has not heretofore prevailed in this country. I can assure the House that in the course of next year, in conjunction with my advisers, I will look most carefully into the whole question of our reserves.
There are two recruiting reforms which I should like to announce, which have not previously been mentioned. Since the time of Queen Anne a reward has been paid to anyone who brought in a recruit. In the eighteenth century 10s. was paid to a parish constable and 10s. to a justice of the peace for every recruit secured. In 1809 pensioner recruiters were paid upon this basis and their successors, the Army recruiters of to-day, have hitherto been paid partly by means of these rewards and partly by means of salary. We have now decided to consolidate the rewards with the salary and to give to all our Army recruiters a reliable income, and at the same time to redress the inequalities that were caused by the different opportunities of getting recruits that presented themselves in different areas. Any private individual -who brings a recruit may still enjoy his historic right of getting payment. He will get 30s. a head for a household cavalryman and 2s. 9d. for an ordinary cavalryman or an infantryman.
The other reform is that permanent staff instructors with the Territorial Army have hitherto had to do recruiting as well for the Regular Army. Training the Territorial Army is a day's work in itself, and we are now going to engage more recruiters and relieve the permanent staff instructors of this part of their responsibility. The cost of this reform will be £25,000 a year, and that of getting rid of the recruiting reward, £3,500 a year. Another announcement that I have to make is that boys enlisted for general service will in future be paid at men's rates from the age of 17½ instead of 18. That is a reform which will cost £25,000 a year. It will improve the prospects and add to the resources of these young men. It will also enable us to enlist boys frankly and openly at 17½. The Air Ministry and the Navy in some cases enlist their boys at an even younger age.

Every year on the Army Annual Bill complaint is made that, while our age of enlistment is nominally 18, we refuse to discharge a boy who turns out to be in fact between 17 and 18; now we shall have 17½ as the age and I will promise to discharge any boy whose parents prove within a reasonable time that he has falsified his true age. That, I think, will meet the request that has been made for many years from the benches opposite.

Mr. Lawson: That means that the right hon. Gentleman is compromising the thing at 17½ instead of 18?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is so. That is the suggestion that was made to me last year and I hope it will be considered to be just. I was asked about promotion from the ranks by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). My idea of democratising the Army was to throw Woolwich and Sandhurst open to any cadet from whatever school, irrespective of his means, provided he had the necessary qualifications. I preferred that to a system which would make promotion exclusively from the ranks. However, I will answer the hon. Member's questions. There are 2,295 officers who have risen from the ranks, of whom 1,028 are Quarter-masters. Therefore, less than half are Quarter-masters, and 18 per cent. of the whole corpus of officers in the British Army at this moment have risen from the ranks. The hon. Member asked, in a rather sceptical way, whether in the last year 30 men had been promoted from the ranks. I believe the exact number was 29. I intend to make known shortly an improvement of the present system of promotion from the ranks. I hope it will not be necessary in future for those promoted from the ranks to go to Woolwich and Sandhurst. They will have acquired a certain training and the sooner they begin to earn their pay the better. They will instead go through the special course that an officer takes after leaving the cadet colleges and they will count, I hope, half the time they have spent in the ranks as officers, but I should like to defer the announcement of that scheme because it is not completely evolved
I have not said anything about the Territorial Army, on which we had a speech of the utmost interest from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wands-worth (Colonel Nathan). No one in the House knows more about the Territorial


Army than he, and no one has done more to stimulate recruiting and we feel extremely indebted to him. He asked a number of questions. He was anxious, as the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street was, to avoid Territorials being employed on air-raid precautions duties. As our Air-Raid Precautions system develops, I hope that that necessity will become less and less. It is not our intention that they should be so employed, although all troops, whether Regular or Territorial, have to aid the civil power and assist the population in the event of emergency. He said that the numbers as between regiments and units were uneven and that, while the total Territorial figure was good, some units were below establishment and some over. That is quite true. We have still many recruits to get into the Territorial Army. He reminded us that our best recruiting agents were certain leaders of foreign countries. When one reflects that we got no fewer than 80,000 recruits in a year, one wonders how this can be kept up year by year. The hon. Member finished with the practical suggestion that we should remove the words "Diet sheet" from the announcement of what the soldier was going to have for his food and substitute "Bill of Fare." I agree that the words "Diet Sheet" have a misleading connotation and we shall adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, and they will select their diet in future from a bill of fare.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Tree) made a number of suggestions affecting amenities. We are, in fact, employing more civilians to relieve soldiers of routine employment. He wanted to know if we were pressing on with the barrack building programme. We are. In 1935 a long-term programme of £7.000,000 was decided upon by my predecessor. We are proposing to spend next year £7,000,000 in one year. The programme, therefore, has been considerably increased, although there is much leeway to make up. Many questions were addressed to me about marriage and the unfortunate position of the married soldier who is under 26 years of age. There are two opinions upon this subject. For years the soldier has been supposed to be a misogynic person, a celibate, and some people doubt whether that is in accord entirely with modern conditions. I do

not wish to express a view on this subject. I would like to observe that it affects the three Service Departments. We are at present in consultation together and it may be possible—I put it no higher than that—at some later stage to make a proposal which, if it does not meet all that is desired by the most extreme, may ease the position. At last, I hope so, and I know what satisfaction that will give to many Members. I think I have answered nearly all the questions that were put to me. As I have said, I was torn between two desires, one to do justice to the excellent speeches that have been made, and the other to keep myself within a reasonable limit. I do not know whether I am convicted upon both counts, but I apologise for the time I have taken.

REPORT [9TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported:

AIR ESTIMATES, 1939

VOTE A. NUMBER OF ROYAL AIR FORCE.

1. "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 118,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding those on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

VOTE I. PAY, ETC., OF THE ROYAL AIR FORCE.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £14,670,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

VOTE 4. WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,250,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Lands, in eluding Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

VOTE 3. TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES.

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £16,870,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores, including Research and Development Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1940."

VOTE 8. CIVIL AVIATION.

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,787,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending; on the 31st day of March, 1940."

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1938.

VOTE A. ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF ROYAL AIR FORCE.

6."That an additional number of Air Forces, not exceeding 6,000 all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding those on the Indian establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939."

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1938.

7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year":—


Schedule.


—
Sums not exceeding


Supply Grants.
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.
£
£


2. Quartering, non-technical stores, supplies and transportation.
Cr. 227,000
14,000


3. Technical and warlike stores (including experimental and research services).
168,000
2,540,000


4. Works, buildings, and lands.
690,000
5,470,000


7. Reserve and Auxiliary Forces.
Cr. 130,900
—


8. Civil aviation …
Cr. 360,000
*—34,000


9. Meteorological and miscellaneous effective services.
Cr. 140,000
—


Total, Air Services (Supplementary), 1938. £
100
7,990,000


Deficite

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Attlee: It is rather a late hour to embark on the consideration of this important subject, and I do not propose to detain the House very long. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) dealt with a number of major issues in the Debate last week. I want to deal with some particular points, and also with some matters of general policy. In the course of the Debate last

week a number of hon. Members in all parts of the House commented upon the changed atmosphere of the Debate this year as compared with a year ago. I think that full credit has been given to the Minister for what he has done, and if we want to give credit we ought to give credit not only to the Minister but to our Parliamentary system, because we should not have got these changes if it had not been that Members of the House did their duty and brought deficiencies to light, thus forcing these changes to be made. Again and again, when deficiencies were brought up, we were assured that everything was all right and that no change was needed. It took a great deal of pressure to get the changes made, and it was only the publicity of Parliament and the work of hon. Members in all parts of the House which have effected the very drastic changes that have been made. We shall have to keep up the pressure if we want to get this matter put on a proper basis.
There is a second consideration which arises, and that is that the very achievements announced by the present Minister for Air and the changes he has made are really the measure of the defects which he had to cure. I will deal only with one or two instances. The first is the allegation of excess profits. That has been raised over and over again not only from this side but from the other side of the House. We have had numerous statements by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and the Minister for Air, and we have been assured that the utmost that could be done was being done to see that we got economy, and that there was no profiteering. The right hon. Gentleman has now decided to alter the basis of the McLintock agreement. We welcome that, but it is a confession that there was a need for an alteration. I am convinced that the right hon. Gentleman will have to go a great deal further. We have had speeches from the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), both of whom speak with a great deal of authority on the question of production in engineering establishments. The question still is whether, as a matter of fact, we are not being overcharged. We have had several arguments recently in the House which seem to me to show some curious ideas on the part of Ministers as to how we arrive at profits. I say that


no explanation of the system of costing and no special pleading can really get over the fact that big fortunes are being made, and that is what the public are thinking about.
In the second place, it was a very long time before we got any admission that all was not well in the production of aeroplanes and other air munitions. The right hon. Gentleman has made his changes. We felt obliged to make some criticism of the Air Ministry, its organisation and personnel, but it took weeks and months before we got changes made, and eventually we were helped rather fortuitously by the report of the Cadman Committee. But we got the changes. We see how necessary they were by what the right hon. Gentleman has been doing. Let me remind him of what he said in his speech in introducing the Estimates:
I spoke in November of the considerable steps that we had taken in relation to our organisation and machinery for production. Since that time we have continued to build up and perfect our organisation, and at present more than half of our directors and assistant directors in the department of production including the Director-General are business men who have been brought in from outside."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1939; col. 2392, Vol. 344.]
Either that practice is right or it is wrong, but the previous practice must also have been either right or wrong. I think he is right in bringing in these business men from outside, but it shows that there was a great deal of unnecessary stone-walling in rejecting criticism before, and it does point to this, that a great deal of the trouble—and I think we ought to be perfectly fair to the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman—is, as has been pointed out so often in this House, that it really is an impossible task to expect one Minister to control a great fighting force and at the same time to deal with supply. It reinforces the demand that is made so often that we should have had a proper Ministry of Supply, and that is further reinforced, to my mind, by the very changes that the right hon. Gentleman is introducing. He says there are directors of materials production, of statistics and planning, of sub-contracting, and of war planning. It may be quite right to have special directors of all those subjects, but the thing that strikes me about them is that, with the possible exception of the last, they are none of them really directors who

ought to be inside the Air Ministry. They are really designed to control just those functions that ought to be in the hands of a Ministry of Supply.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has made a survey of his Department as a whole. He has added certain new directors, but I wonder whether that is merely adding, without considering the general architecture of his organisation. As a matter of fact, the Air Ministry grew up under rather adverse conditions. It was an unhealthy child and was not expected to live, and it struggled for existence for a considerable period. It has now, so to speak, had a heavy dose of boom food. But the question is whether its constitution is right. I wonder how far the right hon. Gentleman has looked at the organisation of the Air Force as an administrative problem. I can imagine him saying that he is far too busy, that his time is fully occupied, as I am sure it is, and that now is not the right time, but the trouble is that it never is the right time to overhaul a Department. If things are going on quietly, why disturb them? If they are busy, you have no time to go into the matter. I think it would be worth while the right hon. Gentleman considering having a kind of objective study made of the organisation of his Ministry. I do not think it would necessarily mean taking up a great deal of time, because the impression that I have had from a great deal of evidence that I have received is that a real overhaul of the system is wanted.
My third point is the rather more delicate one of personnel. We have had a change of personnel in the Ministry, but I cannot help being struck by the fact that the principal officers remain. I have no personal bias whatever against these officers, but it is the fact that these were the occupants who were in the principal posts in the Air Ministry while these deficiencies and defects occurred, and although there has been the introduction of, I think, one new officer on the Air Council, and there has been the introduction of business men, the three principal officers have been there for a considerable time, and it is worth while considering whether a little new blood might not be useful. After all, the Air Service is a young Service, its personnel is young, and it is developing very rapidly, and I must


say that I think there is probably a case for introducing some new blood at the top.
Now I will refer to some specific points. I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little reticent in his replies on the question of maintenance. We have had very considerable complaints in the past with regard to maintenance. We have now a special director, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the period has really been shortened between the time when an accident or a defect in a plane occurs and the time when it comes back into service, because that was one of the big complaints, that it took so long to get repairs done. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we really have had a good change made there? There are two more small points to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Can he give us any figures with regard to promotions to commissioned rank from the ranks? I gathered from a reply that it was intended that in the Air Force there should be a career for talent, and we would like to know how far that is being carried out.
I have a smaller point in regard to which perhaps it would be interesting for the House to know the facts, and that is with regard to the balloon barrage. It has a local interest for me, because I happen to live in a place where one of the balloons was brought down, I understand by a discharge of heaven's artillery. It was in fact, I believe, struck by lightning, and I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us how that occurred, why such a danger was not foreseen, and whether, as a matter of fact, balloon barrages as a whole are liable to be brought down if we should happen to have a thunder storm at the wrong time.
I am willing to concede that the right hon. Gentleman has made a considerable improvement, but we on this side are not yet satisfied. We found a number of things which we thought were defective, we brought them to the Miniser, we discussed them with the Minister, and some of them are being remedied, but I think there is a long way to go, and we shall continue to exercise great vigilance in this matter. There is one difficulty in discussing these Air Estimates. There is a very great deal of information which cannot possibly be given in public, and there are criticisms

which we might like to make but which we should not like to make in public. The hon. Member for Mossley called attention to the fact that in the really big items of expenditure we know nothing whatever. We merely get a figure, and we are also left very much in the dark when we try to estimate what progress has really been made towards shortening that gap between our force and the nearest potential enemy force. We really get nothing at all. All that we have to-day is a percentage of an unknown quantity to set against another unknown quantity, and that is very difficult to evaluate at all. I should like to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that that gap is really being filled up. I am not entirely satisfied on that question.
However satisfactory the Debate may have been to the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure he will agree with me that, facing these enormous Estimates for a great Air Force, none of us is at all satisfied with the whole position. For years the right hon. Gentleman was concerned with public health and with the Post Office. There he had a very definite objective—better health, better housing, better postal services. Now he has to try and produce an efficient Air Force comparable to that of our nearest potential enemy. Suppose that he is successful. Suppose he gets an efficient Air Force, suppose he holds the distance, suppose he goes further and narrows the gap, suppose even that we get a momentary parity with Germany or any other country, the trouble is that there is no finality. I think that is a matter which hon. Members ought to consider when discussing the Air Estimates. In the air, as at sea and on land, we cannot get any finality in trying to get any form of equality. There are the three constantly changing factors —speed, hitting power and defensive armaments, and when one sees the constant increase in the size of bombs, the size of aeroplanes and the pace of aeroplanes, we seem to be going on without any end in sight. In fact, the sky is the limit. Moreover, in an air force there is no real parity owing to the rapidity with which air forces can be taken across from one country to another. We have seen what happened in the contest in Spain, with a flow of Italian aeroplanes coming across. Even from the point of view of the balance of power there cannot be any stable equilibrium of air forces unless all the world is got into two camps.,
The point I am making is that however hard the right hon. Gentleman works, he cannot give us any security. We are building up insecurity. In prewar days, we were accustomed to a kind of uneasy equilibrium of armed forces in a world of anarchy. In those days the time factor was not, as it is to-day, a matter of minutes, but of hours or days— more likely days, and even weeks. But even then, every country had to surround itself with a protective shell. On the Continent, there were forts and armies, and we had our Fleet. Within that shell, normal life could proceed. To-day every family has to have a shell round it. It has to have gas masks, a tin hut, and it may be a deep dug-out, and unless science steps in and finds something that is really effective in stopping raiding aircraft, it seems to me that we are condemned henceforward to live in a perpetual state of fear and apprehension, and we may be driven underground, like Mr. H. G. Wells's Morlocks. The menace to-day might materialise at 10 minutes' notice. This condition of an armed world in the air age is one in which one cannot possibly get any stability as long as there are separate air forces. One can put up an air force, as one puts up a bayonet, but one cannot sit on it. It is a situation unparalleled in the history of civilisation.
Therefore, the Minister is really building a machine that we must want to see scrapped, because I see no way in any reduction or agreement for parity in air armaments. Suppose that we could get an agreement to limit air armaments, it would not relieve us of the need for air-raid precautions at all hours of the day or night. While we are forced to agree, in these circumstances, to these Estimates, we view the future with the greatest apprehension. I have been looking at speeches that were made in 1932, while the Disarmament Conference was sitting. I remember pointing out then that if we did not deal with this, we should find the gas mask and the trench as the ordinary concomitants of civilisation. I remember the speech that Lord Baldwin made at that time. The opportunity was lost. I remember moving then that the only way out was the creation of an international air force and the inter-nationalisation of civil aviation. I welcome in this Debate the very realistic speech that was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Colonel

Moore-Brabazon), who knows more about flying, I think, than any other man in the House; he pointed out that the only way to rid us of this menace is by internationalising the air. Therefore, when we hear some talk of disarmament, we ought to face the fact that we cannot get security without total disarmament in the air. I should regret it very much if, in satisfaction with what has been achieved, hon. Members should feel that somehow or other things are fairly safe. I think that is a complete delusion. The armaments we are building will not give us safety any more than the armaments of the French, the Italians or the Germans will give them safety. Only the abolition of national air forces can give that safety.
I wish to echo the plea that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who spoke of the urgent need for another world conference and the urgent need for dealing with the air menace. We have suggested this many times during the last few years, but we have always been told that it was the wrong time. We were told that in 1932; we were told that we could not get disarmament then. We have had a pretty rude awakening recently to the danger we are in, and I do not think we ought to close this Debate on the Air Estimates without expressing the hope that before we reach any other Air Estimates we may see made a big effort to deal with the causes of war, so that we may go for disarmament.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Mander: In the course of the Debate, a good deal has been said in praise of the Secretary of State for Air, and I should like to associate myself with that. I feel that in these matters personality plays a very large part, and whatever high qualities other persons may possess, the right hon. Gentleman has a personality which enables him to get on very well with individuals, and in dealing with the matters of great urgency that attach to his office, I cannot help thinking that is an enormous asset. I think that a word of praise ought also to be given to another individual who, although he is not actually a Member of the Government, is very close to it, that is, the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary. Although he is only a Parliamentary Private Secretary, he really carries out duties that in some sense appertain to the Minister. He is


widely respected and trusted, and I feel that he is a very great asset to the office of the Secretary of State for Air.
I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that while the progress which is being made with air rearmament may be regarded as satisfactory, it is simply winning a hopeless race. It is not an end in itself; it is merely a means to something else, and unless it leads to a disarmament conference, with an agreement for mutual inspection, then its results cannot be considered as satisfactory for anybody at all. I should like to support what was said the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) about joint action with France and other countries with whom we are allied, and indeed other countries with whom we may be called upon to act. There ought to be the closest correlation; we ought to make arrangements for the joint use of aerodromes and for joint air exercises. It may be that all these things are being considered and possibly being done, but nothing will add to our defences and to our strength in the world more than the knowledge, on the part of potential enemies, that, not only have we got these forces, but that they are all ready and co-ordinated with the forces of other countries with whom we shall act. It will then be seen that we really mean business.
There are certain aspects of the air problem to which I wish to refer. The first is with regard to the training of pilots carried out by the flying clubs and by the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve respectively. I cannot help thinking that the clubs are really doing better work and getting more out of the training than the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve. I have in mind the case of a club which turned out about 150 pilots in a year while the local R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve trained only 45 men in about 18 months—15 at a time. The R.A.F. training was done on eight expensive service machines, whereas the club training was done on civil machines. Furthermore, the Volunteer Reserve gives its members no experience in bombing and in gunnery, and the difference between the two types of training seems to be that, in the Reserve, a man gets the advantage of training on military aircraft. I hope consideration will be given to the question of whether it would not be both

cheaper and more effective to extend the training of pilots by the clubs. On the question of the Auxiliary Air Force, I understand it has been the practice to train them as bombing squadrons. I should have thought that, in the circumstances, there was a great deal to be said for training them as fighters and not as bombers. It may be that that is realised and that alterations are taking place, but I feel that there was originally an error of judgment in allocating to the Auxiliary Force the task of bombing.
On the subject of accidents these, no doubt, are often due to lack of experience, but they involve very heavy loss both in life and in expensive machines such as the Hurricane and the Spitfire, I would suggest that experience of flying in bad weather might be obtained in civil machines such as Tiger Moths. These would not, I think, be so liable to accidents, and, if accidents did occur, then obviously the losses involved would not be so great. Flying in service machines should be done, as far as possible, in good weather. I cannot help feeling, though I do not wish to do more than very lightly refer to this matter, that some young officers who are in command of squadrons now—necessarily so in the circumstances of the case— do not perhaps always exercise the wisest judgment in the orders given in regard to flying arrangements. I understand that one of the greatest needs for military aircraft is an efficient automatic pilot— known, I believe, as "George" in the service. We are behind other countries such as the United States and Germany in this respect, and I believe that few things would give more satisfaction throughout the service than the achievement of success in this matter.
In regard to civil aviation, the situation is admittedly unsatisfactory. We understand that that is inevitable, to some extent, owing to the great concentration at present on the military effort, but I do not know that our civil aviation need be as unsatisfactory as it is. Probably the right hon. Gentleman has not had the time or opportunity to give his personal attention to many matters of detail which he would like to supervise if his mind were more free from the military tasks. In civil aviation at present we are living on the Empire flying boats. That is the only great success that has been obtained in recent years. The Ensign machines


have turned out to be under-powered and have been sent back to the manufacturers for alterations and adjustments. It is very unsatisfactory to find that this had to be done. Reference, no doubt, will be made to the well-known Rae Report and its recommendations, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman could devote his own attention to that matter.
The position at the Air Ministry and the Civil Aviation Department seems to be thoroughly unsatisfactory at present. There is a Director-General of Civil Aviation; to whom certain references were made in the Cadman Report. Unfortunately, through illness he has been unable for a long time to carry out his duties. As Deputy Director-General we have a high Treasury official, a very competent person I am sure, doing his best, but he has had little experience up to the present of aviation work. He is there as second in command and is supposed to work closely with the Secretary of the Department, Sir Donald Banks, but Sir Donald Banks has gone to Australia, so that this admirable Treasury official is really running the Civil Aviation Department, more or less by himself as regards the higher command. The time has come to face the situation there, and I hope the Secretary of State will make a definite appointment of a Director-General of Civil Aviation who can give his full time to the work and has the personality, drive and experience to make such success as is possible in existing circumstances. A subsidy was to be made available for civil aviation of £100,000 a year. It was voted last year, and I presume it will be voted again this year, but not one penny piece has been paid. Will the sum that was voted last year lapse, or will it in due course be paid in addition to the sum which is voted this year? The licensing authority has been considering the cases of the 11 different lines in this country for the last six months or so, and they have not issued any licences. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs.
The railway companies, who are crying out on every hoarding for a square deal, are themselves doing their utmost to prevent any square deal being given to the civil aviation lines. They are opposing the granting of licences to every independent company that they possibly can. The result of this delay is that the civil

aviation companies are in a bad way. They cannot hold out indefinitely, and if the delay goes on some of them may find it impossible to continue. Is that the object of the Air Ministry? Do they really want them to give up and hand over civil aviation to the railway companies? If that is so, let them say so. If not, will they come to some definite decision as soon as possible and make the money which has been voted available for those companies who are struggling to carry on? It may be the right thing to amalgamate the different civil aviation companies—Imperial Airways, British Airways and all the internal airways—but whether it is or not, there should be some definite statement of policy. I recognise the difficulties of civil aviation in existing circumstances, but it is most important that we should be in a position to make the most of all the resources that we possess, and to show to the world that in the realm of civil aviation we are second to none.

10.17 p.m.

Captain Peter Macdonald: I would like to begin by referring to the admirable statement which was made by the Secretary of State last week in introducing the Estimates with regard to the military side of this programme. Remarkable progress has been made during the time that he and his Under-Secretary have been at the Air Ministry. I want to urge upon the Ministry to-night that in developing the military side of their programme they should not overlook the civil side. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has raised a point of great importance, that of assisting those civil aviation companies who are endeavouring under great difficulties to build up services throughout the country. The Ministry has to decide whether these services are to be handed over to the railway companies, who, as the hon. Member says, are putting every obstacle in the way of many companies developing their services. I have in mind a service to the Isle of Wight, about which the hon. and gallant Member the Under-Secretary knows something. The service was operating satisfactorily for a time, although, perhaps, without very great remuneration for the directors and shareholders, but it eventually amalgamated with the railway company. The railway company took it over and took the service off, and there is now no direct service


to the Isle of Wight. That is one instance which happened to come within my purview, but I hear on all sides that there are many other cases of the same kind. If the railway companies are merely going to take over those companies, or are doing everything they can to put obstacles in their way in order to keep all traffic to their own railway lines, I think it is time the Air Ministry intervened and did something about it.
What I chiefly want to discuss to-night are the Imperial air-routes. I should like to know what is in the mind of the Secretary of State regarding the future of those air-routes. That subject is extremely important in view of the lack of a definite policy in the past upon this important branch of civil aviation. In the past 15 years Governments have done nothing but change their mind and their policy, with the result that neither the civil air companies, like Imperial Airways, British Airways or others, which have been trying to develop these routes or the manufacturers of civil aircraft have at any time had any idea of what the future policy was to be. There are two points upon which the Ministry should definitely make up its mind. First, it should decide once and for all upon a long-term policy for external civil aviation. In the second place it should make up its mind to make it possible for our aircraft manufacturing industry to turn out modern types of aircraft in sufficient numbers.
The first point is essential because we have had so many changes in the past 15 years. Originally, it was the policy of the Government that civil aviation should fly "on its own." A subsidy was granted, but on a diminishing scale. We were to leave Imperial Airways a clear field, but eventually without any subsidy. Imperial Airways for a considerable time struggled on. I think they gave a very efficient service to the Empire, considering their handicap. I have travelled a good deal upon Imperial Airways routes and in face of all their difficulties I consider that they put up a very good show indeed. I have nothing but praise for Imperial Airways, knowing as I do the handicaps which they had to overcome. The chief handicap was not knowing what their future was to be, whether they would have to rely entirely upon their own resources and at the same time try to find dividends for their, share-

holders, or whether they were going to have further assistance from the Government. The result was that they were obliged to use their machines for too long, and other countries like the Dutch, the Germans and the French have gained a great superiority over them upon some routes.
Then the question of the prestige of this country came in, and again the Government changed its mind. In moving the Air Navigation Bill in this House the Secretary of State for Air said:
The original idea of civil aviation was that it was to fly by itself, but the fact remains that everywhere and by all countries civil aviation is subsidised to-day, and I do not think there is any doubt, whatever method we may have in mind for dealing with it, that more money is needed if this country is to keep its proper position in relation to this important matter."—[Official Report, 18th May, 1938; col. 427, Vol. 336.]
A great many of us had tried to press that point upon the attention of various Ministers for a long time.
This view was shared also by the Cad-man Committee, which thought that in addition to asking for subsidies for civil aviation the matter should be dealt with more on a basis of prestige than of economics. It was regarded as desirable to introduce an element of competition and of sub-division. Here again is where the Air Ministry changed their minds. The Cadman Committee recommended that in addition to granting large subsidies to Imperial Airways the Government should subsidise another airway company to compete with Imperial Airways and that they should give a subsidy to British Airways. Reference has been made to the fact that while the Government were giving the subsidy they were giving no machines to the company to fly those routes. The company appealed to the Air Ministry for machines, but the machines were not forthcoming. By that time this country had embarked upon the rearmament programme and that necessity was paramount at the time and no civil aviation machines could be produced in time. That was last August. British Airways appealed to the Air Ministry to be allowed to buy a machine outside this country, and for a long time that appeal was rejected, in spite of the fact that K.L.M. and other airways were buying American machines. They were not allowed to buy even British machines,


and no American machines were forthcoming. Eventually the company were granted permission to buy an American machine. Orders were put in hand, but delivery could not be taken for a considerable time.
That was the position until recently. Now British Airways have some excellent American machines, but that does not add to the prestige of British aviation. On the contrary, it is a very great blot upon our prestige to have Imperial Airways with American or any other make of foreign machine. It should have British machines. That policy did not last very long, because no sooner had we decided that the Government had a special policy for civil aviation complete than there was another sudden change, and instead of having those two chosen instruments for the future the Government suddenly decided to come to Parliament with legislation setting up a fresh organisation and taking over the interests of Imperial Airways and British Airways. I am sure that when the time comes the House will want to know a good deal more about the proposed corporation, but I am not going to press the right hon. Gentleman to-night because there will be many more hon. Members who wish to speak.
I am sure that this House is very anxious to maintain some control over this form of corporation. A considerably larger subsidy will have to be paid from public funds and the new director-general of Imperial Airways will know something about public corporations. I hope that the position will not be what it was before, when no one could ask a question in the House or criticise in any way the workings of that organisation without being told that it was outside the purview of Parliament. That will be a very important consideration when the Minister introduces the Bill, because I am convinced that Parliament will not allow him to set up a large public corporation to control the whole of our Imperial air routes without Parliament having some say in its management and control. The position of Imperial Airways has always been unsatisfactory. It has often been pointed out that, while they have control over the operating part of their business, there is no one to answer for them in this House except the Secretary of State, and he has no direct control over their operations, although he can withhold the subsidy. I hope that that

will not be the position of the new corporation.
I was very glad that the Secretary of State, in his speech and in the Memorandum accompanying the Estimates, was able to indicate that considerable progress has been made during the past year with new developments in Imperial air routes, and that now we are to have the air-mail scheme completed to Australia and Hong Kong. That has taken a long time to develop. To-day, I believe, it is working satisfactorily, apart from some delays on schedule due to various causes which I hope in time will be overcome. I understand, also, that arrangements are to be made for an extension of the service to New Zealand, and that negotiations are on foot for an extension between Burma and China. There are proposals also for services between East Africa and South Africa, and for a service from the Gold Coast to Nigeria; and the Atlantic service is to be opened this year. Another branch of the service which has not yet been developed is the West Indian colonial service. There the Americans have stolen a march upon us, and have developed quite a considerable service between the Islands. Until quite recently no British air service had been operating in these Islands, and it is certainly to the detriment of British prestige that that should be so.
One hears reports of inconveniences and delays due to various causes. It is very unsatisfactory when, in a service operating on schedule, the schedules are not maintained, and when an air-mail service is advertised to carry mails on schedule and those mails do not arrive in time. It is also extremely unsatisfactory, especially to business men in this country who desire to use Imperial air routes, when, on arriving at an air base, they are told that they cannot be accommodated because of the amount of mail that has been taken on board, and when, owing to there being no room for passengers, they are compelled to travel by a foreign service. That frequently occurs, I am told; and the reason is obvious. It is because these Imperial flying boats, excellent as they are, are not made for the dual purpose, and it is quite impossible, as far as I can see, to develop a type of aircraft that is going to be serviceable for both passengers and mail service. The sooner the Minister makes up his mind that these services have got to be divorced, and that


a type of machine has to be evolved for carrying mails throughout the Empire and a different type of machine evolved for carrying passengers, the better. Unless that is done, there will always be dissatisfaction with both services, as there is to-day. Remarkable progress has been made in the past year in developing these services and adding another 20,000 miles, making about 50,000 miles in all of Imperial air routes flown over by British companies, though not altogether by British machines, and I urge my right hon. Friend not to endeavour to develop this dual service, but to separate the two, and so give far greater satisfaction.

10.37 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I intervene for only a few moments, to raise one or two points. One was referred to earlier to-day, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) asked the Prime Minister whether we could have a day to discuss the Ministry for the Coordination of Defence, and that raises the important point, brought forward earlier in the Debate, on the question of the air as regards the Army to-day. As far as we are concerned—and this is a question for the Opposition to raise—we think that one of the most important questions that arise in this matter of the Co-ordination of Defence, with reference to the relation of the air both to the Army and to the Navy. We have the Fleet Air Arm, and we have heard a strong appeal by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) for information as to what is going to happen with respect to fighters for the Army. It would be very useful in clarifying the position if we could get a definite statement on that.
The Leader of the Opposition has raised again the questions of waste and profits. On the question of waste, I would like to refer to a matter of which I happen to have knowledge, relating to the overlapping which happens at present. On the aerodrome at Hucknall, where I happen to be stationed, they are putting in an enormous number of trees. These have been brought all the way from Wiltshire, instead of being obtained locally as one might have expected, which would have been much cheaper. They have been put up all around, and in the aerodrome itself. Yet during this year we are going to have a reorganisation and a rebuilding of the aerodrome, and over that very place where those trees are now being put

hangars are going to be built. This has been pointed out, but somebody has the order for the trees, and the trees, which are big ones, are now being put in. Then they will have to pull them up in order to put up those hangars. The lack of organisation which one sees in a matter like that is creating an immense amount of waste at the present time.
There are one or two other small points which I would like to bring out, one of which is the question of the new Harvard trainer. Although there has been a certain amount written to the effect that this trainer machine which has come from America is not satisfactory, I do not think that that is the proper view to take. There is no doubt that this is a very efficient trainer, although the noise it makes can be very irritating, and no doubt it will have to be put in places where you will not get the complaints that are being received now. I hope that the Ministry will induce all aircraft manufacturers in this country to study that trainer to see the way a machine of that type should be built. There is no doubt that it has a far better lay-out than the machines which are now being produced in the Service to-day. There is a great deal to be learned from the American machines.
I wish to bring up a point on the question of recruiting for the Air Force. There are certain accounts going round as to other parts of the Territorial Army trying to build up the idea that they are to get the recruits. I have come across a particular case—it is not a single case—of a person who has been in the Auxiliary Air Force for four years wanting to re-engage again, but because he happens to be in the Post Office he is told that he cannot re-engage in the Auxiliary Air Force but must join one of the units which are in the interests of the Post Office. I hope that the Minister will see to it that this cross-staging from one side of the auxiliary services to another is not allowed to continue, as is undoubtedly happening to-day.
We are building up a voluntary reserve which is undoubtedly producing good and efficient pilots, but there are great difficulties. I know of a case where there are something like 92 pilots to be trained, and all they have available are six small machines. Unless you can get more machines, it will slow up the putting through of pilots and dishearten them in


the training which they must undergo. I am certain that the Volunteer Reserve will be more satisfactory than any other system in producing the pilots really needed for fully developing and expanding the Air Force, but it must be helped. It is not in criticism that I call attention to a question of waste. In some places equipment is given for night flying. It is very costly and the aerodrome is not fitted for night flying, and so the equipment is not used. Under the present system—and I am not blaming the Secretary of State for Air—you are not getting the full value for the amount of money that is being spent, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will certainly go into that matter.
The only other point I wish to bring out is the question of new aerodromes and the nuisance of aerodromes. I know of many cases where aerodromes have had to be established in places where they had not been expected, and a great deal of feeling has been aroused because they have gone there. The Minister might pay a tribute to many people who have suffered great inconvenience and disturbance by the coming of those aerodromes into their midst. I know of one or two cases where people have suffered immensely through this establishment of aerodromes. It is nearly always the people who suffer most who complain the least. There is one particular case near my training camp at Chesil Bank. The owner of a house there has suffered complete misery and scarcely been able to use it, and yet has made no complaint. Such people deserve a great tribute of praise. There are others who have done what they could in many ways.
With regard to Chesil Bank, there was an accident the other day and there have been several others. Other accidents, perhaps of a fatal character, might be avoided if the present regulations, which have been laid down because of a certain owner there, could be altered. The Minister might take some steps in that matter so that it might be remedied, and we should then have a better feeling in the district. I do not want to be too critical of what the Minister is doing. There is, however, a great deal of waste going on and much reorganisation is needed. I hope that every effort will be made to improve matters, because it is only by getting real value for money

that we shall be able to build up the Air Force we want.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Perkins: I should like to reinforce the protest of the Leader of the Opposition to the Government for bringing on the Debate on this important matter at a late hour of the evening. This is the biggest of the three Defence Estimates. It is the biggest Estimate that has ever been presented to this House by the Air Minister. I am informed that it is possibly as big as the Estimates that would have been presented in 1919 if the War had continued until then. It is, therefore, rather unfair at this late hour that the House should be asked to discuss such important matters. In the past I have been an unrepentant critic of Air Ministers, Under-Secretaries and the Air Ministry itself, both in regard to military aviation and civil aviation, but to-night I must say, like the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) that as far as military aviation is concerned I am completely satisfied. I believe that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary in the last 12 months have performed the impossible. They have increased the monthly output of aeroplanes from 200 to 450, and at the end of this year the output is likely to go up to 800 or 900.
With regard to civil aviation, there are many matters that are very far from being right. I intend to raise 12 detailed matters in regard to civil aviation, and I hope the Secretary of State will realise that I am doing this as a friendly critic and not in any hostile spirit, but because I want to see things better in British civil aviation. Unless attention is called to these matters they will not right themselves. First, I would deal with pilots employed in British air lines. I refer not only to Imperial Airways pilots but to all pilots. As far as the pilots employed by Imperial Airways are concerned I believe that never before have they been so happy or so contented as they are at this moment. They are now at last being treated as human beings. What they appreciate most is the fact that they now have the right to go either to Sir John Reith or to Mr. Runciman, either as individuals or collectively through the British Air Lines Pilots' Association. There is right through the company now, I am informed, an entirely different spirit from what there was three or four years ago.
There is one matter that is worrying all pilots in this country. In the Maybury Report, which was presented 2i years ago, and which the House has never yet had an opportunity to discuss, though we have often asked for it, there is a definite recommendation that a central school, assisted by the Government, for training air line pilots should be set up. The Government accepted the recommendation, but the school has never been set up. I know the Undersecretary will say that British Airways have a school, and in theory it is open to all pilots. In fact, it is not open to all pilots, because it is always full of British Airways pilots, and pilots from other companies cannot get the advantage of this training. I urge the Secretary of State to look into the matter and see if it is not possible to implement the pledge in the Maybury Report and set up this assisted school.
The next point that I want to raise is connected with London air ports. It was announced about a month ago that in due course Croydon is to be closed, Lulling-stone is to be purchased and Heston is to be enlarged. That is a very great step forward, and I should like to congratulate and thank the Secretary of State once again, but I should also like to urge him to push on with those schemes. I cannot help comparing him to a batsman batting on a perfect wicket at the close of a summer's day, well set, and the bowling thoroughly tired. But he suddenly realises in the distance that a thunderstorm is coming up and he has to make runs quickly if the match is to be won. I have a feeling that in two or three years' time we shall see another Geddes axe. The Treasury will cry halt to all expenditure of this kind, and for that reason I urge the Secretary of State to push on with the scheme. While the batting is easy, while the wicket is playing so well, we can get the money in order to get the scheme.
The third point is in regard to new machines. As far as one can see, for the first time for many years past we shall have some aeroplanes which are likely to sell in the Empire market. I am talking of civil aeroplanes. With any luck we shall sell the Flamingo and Albatross aeroplanes, and in due course, when the new Fairey aeroplane comes along, I hope we shall sell some of those. The credit for these machines must be

given entirely to the Secretary of State, but I suggest that the time has come for another move for an order to produce aeroplanes which we can sell in the markets of the world, not in a year or two, but in five years' time.
A year ago I mentioned a specification put up by Pan-American Airways to the main contractors in America. They asked for an aircraft capable of taking 100 passengers 5,000 miles at a cruising speed of 200 miles an hour. Five companies have quoted, and I am informed that in every case the specification has actually been exceeded. What are we doing along these lines? Have any inquiries been sent out? Have any orders been placed? Is he aware that designs were got out nearly two years ago by a British manufacturer for a machine which was far in excess of the American specifications? It had a speed of 300 miles an hour, and was capable of taking 100 passengers to New York non-stop, at an inclusive fee per passenger of £15. I suggest that the time has come for us to make another move in this direction. If I am right we have a machine which is a long way in front of anything even that they have in America at the moment. I would urge the Secretary of State to give an order for one of these machines at once, in order that in four or five years' time we may be well ahead of the Americans.
My fourth point is in connection with the Mayo-composite. I have always thought that this was rather a frivolous experiment, but on the whole it has been successful. It certainly has brought off some fine achievements and even record flights. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Air Ministry to go on with experiments with this Mayo-composite or has the idea been dropped? If it is the intention to go on with the experiment I should like to know what steps have been taken. Have any more orders been placed for bigger machines, or is the matter still being considered? I hope the Secretary of State will be able to tell us what is likely to happen to this experiment.
I come to my fifth point, and that is the service in Europe, and particularly the services of Imperial Airways. I am sure every hon. Member hopes that in the near future, possibly during this year, we shall see a great change for the better. At


the moment the situation could not be much worse. Even the service to Switzerland, which was promised last November to start in January, has not as yet materialised. The reason why these services are not there at the moment is because the Ensign air-liner has not yet been delivered. It was ordered in September, 1934, and here we are in March, 1939, and not one of these machines is in regular service. I am informed by some of my friends that the machine, as a machine, is an extraordinarily good one, but, unfortunately, it is equipped with engines known as the Tiger 9, which are a complete failure. I suggest that the time has come to stop fooling with these engines and to issue an ultimatum to the manufacturers, and tell them plainly that the Secretary of State proposes to remove them from the Air Ministry list unless they take immediate steps to scrap these dud engines and equip the machines with proper engines so that they may be in service in Europe during this summer. It is absolutely absurd that development of British civil aviation in Europe and on the Empire routes should be held up simply by one obstinate and incompetent manufacturer.
Then I want to refer to the flying boat services which have always come in for a good deal of praise. The particular service I want to refer to is the service to Singapore. It makes my blood boil when I find that on the run to Singapore we are being defeated all along the line by the Dutch air liners. I have here the timetable schedules of our service and the Royal Dutch service, and I find that we are definitely one day behind when we reach Singapore on the schedule. But that is not the whole story. In answer to a question I put in the House a few days ago my hon. and gallant Friend told the House that in more than 50 per cent. of the cases we are late. In actual times we are not late by a few hours; we are late often by days. The kind of reasons which are put forward why we are late are sometimes the weather, sometimes engine trouble, sometimes it is the Post Office which has delayed the machine, and sometimes it is lack of night facilities.
All kinds of excuses are put up, but I suggest to the Secretary of State that the fundamental reason why we are late at Singapore is because our machines have a lower cruising speed than the Dutch

machines. We are cruising at about 150 miles an hour against the Dutch machine, which is cruising at about 175 miles an hour, and it must be obvious that just as if there are two trains going from London to Glasgow, the one which goes the faster will reach Glasgow first, so, if there are two aeroplanes going from London to Singapore, the one which goes the faster will arrive first.
I know there are troubles with engines, with weather, and with the Post Office, but those troubles are met equally by the Dutch airlines. We have to go through bad weather, but so do the Dutch. The only difference is that the Dutchman, with his extra turn of speed, has the opportunity of making up lost time, which we unfortunately have not got. I want to ask the Secretary of State what he is going to do about this situation. These machines have been built to last for seven years, and we have had them about two and a-half or three years, so that they have about four to go. I am sure it is not his wish that we should be behind the Dutchmen for the next four years, and I would suggest to him that the solution of this problem is to retain these boats and to give an order immediately for some fast land planes. I know that at the moment the whole question of whether this route is to be run by flying boats or by land planes is still undecided. The Air Ministry, Imperial Airways, and various people concerned cannot quite make up their minds and want time to consider it, but it seems to me that now is a Heaven-sent opportunity for the great ideal of separating passengers and mail to be put into practice.
Surely the solution of this problem is to keep the boats as they are now and to send passengers by the boats. It does not make much difference to the passenger going out to Singapore if he arrives on the fifth day or on the sixth, but when you are dealing with mails, it is a different matter, particularly when the machines do not always run to time. We have two machines being delivered in this country quite suitable for running a fast mail service to Australia—the Albatros and the Flamingo. They are both in production. Would it not be possible to give an order for the makers of these two machines to produce enough aeroplanes to carry the mails day and night, to beat at any rate the Dutchmen, so far as the mails are concerned, to Singapore?
The next point that I want to bring out is the question of the South Atlantic. I know there are immense difficulties in the way of starting up that route. I know that General Franco put his foot down and refused to allow British Airways to fly across Spain, and as a result of that action the whole of that route has been held up. But the facts are that the German Luft Hansa Company has been flying that route once a week with mails since 1934, every week for five years, and that Air France, the French Air Line, has been flying it also once a week since 1936. We have not started yet, and, as far as I can make out, the chances of our running a regular mail service over the South Atlantic are pretty bad, and there is little likelihood of our starting up this service until 1941 or 1942, eight years after the Germans.
Then I come to a point which is, I believe, of a rather controversial nature, and that is the loss of the Cavalier flying boat off Bermuda, and the question of ice formation. I believe that disaster is a major disaster for British civil aviation, coming as it does at a time when flying boats are about to cross the North Atlantic and when the old dream of mails being carried from London to New York in 12 or 15 hours is about to become a reality. What is causing the delay in the publication of this report? When it is published, is it to be published in full, or are we to have only a little summary suitably doctored for public consumption? Surely, there can be no object in hiding this report or hushing it up. In view of the fact that every man in aviation knows that the cause of the accident was ice in the carburettor, surely there can be no object in not publishing the report in full.
I go further and urge upon the Secretary of State that it is important that, when the report is published, there should not appear in it statements to the effect that the question of ice in carburettors is some new phenomenon never before encountered by British aviation. It has been encountered before, and the technical experts of the Ministry and Imperial Airways have known all about it for many years. In 1933, the crash of the air liner "Apollo" in Belgium was due to ice in the carburettor. As a result, Imperial Airways were convicted in a British court of negligence, and had to pay £4,000

damages, out of which they managed to escape on a technical point on appeal. That shows that as far back as 1933, this problem was encountered. Not only was it encountered then, but it was encountered steadily right through last winter. The other day my hon. Friend told me, in answer to a question, that three flying boats had suffered from this trouble, and in any one of those cases, there might have been a disastrous crash. Therefore, this is no new phenomenon.
I want to ask the Secretary of State what progress, if any, has been made in research into this problem in this country. I would draw his attention to what is being done in America. In that country, the conditions that pilots have to fly through are far more severe, from the point of view of ice, than they are in Europe, and yet the Pan-American Air Lines have, for two and a-half years, used a method which I am told is very satisfactory—although I speak subject to correction—in getting over this problem. It consists of a little reserve tank, which is attached to the main petrol supply, filled wih a concoction consisting of alcohol and aniline. In that way they have, to a very large extent, overcome the problem of ice in the carburettor. I ask the Under-Secretary whether it is not possible to equip one or two machines in this country and to try out this new device at once? Is it not possible that the technical advisers of Imperial Airways and the technical people at the Air Ministry are perhaps a little out of touch with what is happening on the technical side in the New World? Again and again we have illustrations of our technical people being behind the designers in other countries as far as civil aviation is concerned. They never seem to be in a hurry to adopt new ideas and inventions. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition was not right when he said that perhaps new blood was needed at the Air Ministry, particularly on the technical side.
Lastly, I would like to say a few words regarding the future of civil aviation and the future unemployment problem we have to face. The armaments race is on. It will end either by war or by an arms convention; personally, I believe there will be an arms convention. Possibly that convention will fix 2,000 or 3,000 first-line machines, but whatever the number may be, it will be a big one. There-


fore, one cannot help feeling that there will be enough work in the industry to keep the old aircraft firms at work. What is to happen to the new firms that have come into the industry and the people employed in them, and to the people now employed in our shadow factories? What is going to happen to the people now employed on municipal aerodromes when the Volunteer Reserve schools have been taken away? I do not believe there is a solution of the problem, but I do believe it will be possible to alleviate this trouble when it comes, if the proper steps are taken now.
My right hon. Friend when he introduced these Estimates, boasted that this year we were going to spend £4,500,000 on civil aviation. That is only 2 per cent. of the total Estimate—a "widow's mite" compared with what we are spending on the military side. May I suggest to him that this proportion should be increased from 2 per cent. to 10 per cent. of the total. If that were done, I believe my right hon. Friend would be laying a foundation on which in the future we could readily expand our civil aviation if, when an Arms Convention comes along, there should be a big increase in unemployment in this country.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor: I wish to ask the Secretary of State a specific question on a matter of detail, namely, whether provision is made in the Estimates for the payment of a share of the cost of erecting sea defences at two points on the Suffolk coast where Air Ministry property is threatened by the sea, as a result of coast erosion. The two points to which I refer are Felixstowe and Aldeburgh. I am familiar with both places, and I have watched what is taking place. There is not the slightest doubt that there is at both places very grave risk of the sea breaking through and flooding the low-lying land behind. I know the Air Ministry is in possession of reports prepared by experts, at the instance of the two local authorities concerned, and I have no doubt that the Ministry's own experts have visited the sites and know what is taking place. Suffice it to say that there is not any doubt that the land upon which the Air Ministry has spent very large sums, and which is doubtless of great importance for defence purposes, is very seriously menaced.

I hope, therefore, that provision has been made for the payment of a share of the cost—because it will have to be borne also by others whose property is threatened in the same way—of putting up the necessary defences. As we have just been reminded, we are spending colossal sums on defence against a potential enemy. Here we have an actual enemy at our gate and the relatively small sum necessary to defend ourselves against that enemy can, surely, be easily afforded.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: I think the Secretary of State for Air and the Under-Secretary will expect me to take part in this Debate, because for a considerable time I have been worrying the Minister and his assistants about air development in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman is the one Secretary of State for Air who has visited Scotland in connection with this question, but I am not yet satisfied that he is taking full advantage of the facilities that can be given by Scotland in air development. When the Minister flew to Glasgow, the flight took place in very bad weather and, as a result, he walked through the McLellan Galleries with a very jaunty step. I agreed wholeheartedly with that part of his speech which he made in Glasgow in which he said that the development of air-minded-ness was not something which should be restricted to any particular area; while centralisation with regard to the air force might be necessary, it was bad when it neglected important parts of the country.
I raised the question with the Minister a considerable time ago with regard to the development of the balloon barrage system for Glasgow. I am of the opinion from my own research into this question and from information given to me by those who are experienced in such matters that this system was the most appropriate and practically the only defence for Glasgow, situated as it is with its docks. At long last the Ministry have agreed, and a statement was recently issued that Glasgow was one of the seven centres that would have a balloon barrage system. I would like to ask in regard to air development in Scotland how the Air Ministry fix contracts for work that has to be done. My experience in visiting offices of works and speaking to secretaries has been that where an order can be placed round the corner or where interests are centred in


Whitehall, it is difficult for areas outside the centre to be represented in the granting of contracts. I find that Scotland has been badly treated with regard to Air Ministry work in Scotland, and Scottish contractors have had practically no say in it. If the Minister desires, as he stated in his Glasgow speech, the co-operation of the Scottish people, the Welsh people, and the people of the whole country, in the development of air-mindedness, he must give to these people an equal share in any benefits that accrue from Air Ministry policy. I would like to ask the Minister what Scottish firms have been asked to quote for the new aerodrome at Abbots-inch. Is it not a fact that one firm was sent for by the Ministry and given the contract, which ran to nearly £1,000,000, and that no Scottish firm was even asked to quote? Is it not a fact that this firm, which has got this plum, has in the past been unable in quoting to approach the tenders of almost every other firm with which it was in competition?
Can the Minister make a statement also with regard to the benefits which may have accrued from the exhibition in Glasgow? I visited that exhibition and found it a most interesting one, but I should like to have a statement from him as to whether that exhibition did not indicate to Scottish firms that the work for them would be almost wholly on a sub-contracting basis and that there was little chance of direct contracts being given to them. As regards the increased accommodation to be provided at Mont-rose aerodrome, where a new hangar was to be built, I should like to know whether that work has been completed; if so, whether it was a Scottish contractor who did the job, and whether the Air Ministry are satisfied with the time taken. Further, I should like to know what progress has been made with the establishment of the training school in the North of Scotland for which provision was made in the last Estimates? Have any pupils yet attended or what stage of development has been reached? Speaking from memory, I believe that the expenditure of £400,000 on that school was questioned by some Members, and I should like to know what progress it has made towards securing that air-mindedness in the Scottish people which the Minister so much desires.
Next I should like to know what facilities exist in Scotland for training boys who join the Air Force in Scotland.

Is it still the policy of the Air Ministry to recruit the boys in Scotland and transfer them to England for training or is the training being carried out in Scotland? I think the Minister must see the advantages of training the boys in Scotland in preference to sending them to other parts of the country, a system which creates difficulties for both the boys and for their parents, who like to see their sons occasionally.
There is one other question which I should like to ask the Minister and I have done. Having met him at the exhibition, and having noticed the terrific effect of his placatory manner upon the Lord Provost of Glasgow, whom I could almost claim to be the right hon. Gentleman's chief recruiting agent in Scotland to-day, may I ask him to tell us what are the new developments taking place in Scotland as a result of his visit. Has there been an increase in recruits or of expenditure in Scotland, and a return to the people of something of value for their services to the Ministry? In this matter the Air Ministry can have a closer accord than the military forces, because the air method is quicker. Do the Scottish people depend for their defence, as they did last year, upon the air squadrons stationed in England? Have we at Montrose aerodrome modern planes that can defend the people of Scotland efficiently without having to depend upon those squadrons in England?

11.27 P.m.

Mr. David Adams: Like many other hon. Members I agree that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Air Minister and his colleagues for the work they have so far efficiently carried out, although a vast amount of work remains to be carried out. It is well to recognise services rendered to the State at a time of urgent necessity. Coming from the North-East coast I am anxious to have some specific assurance with regard to the protection to be afforded to that great industrial population in County Durham, on both banks of the Tyne. I particularise that coast, because we have a dense population there of some 1,500,000 people, engaged in important work of national importance in the manufacture of arms of various kinds, shipbuilding and other trades and industries. Unless protection is afforded, and there are convincing indications that it is genuine, there will be unrest there which will not be too easily allayed. The Gov-


ernment have not made up their mind on the provision of deep bombproof shelters such as the industrial and engineering population have been long convinced are an imperative necessity for their protection in the event of warfare. If the population are to conduct their work satisfactorily they must have that protection I ask whether we are to have the benefit not only of the balloon barrage but of whatever other air protection the area is to receive.
I have not heard a satisfactory response on another point which has been raised in the Debate, concerning the protection of the community against excessive rates of profit in the manufacture of aircraft, aeroplanes and the instruments of warfare. I recognise that the difficulties are great. We have the privately-owned factories which are used now for new and possibly temporary purposes, and there are difficulties in limiting the profits in such cases, where the owners are employing their capital to the disadvantage of their normal trade, in an enterprise which may disappear altogether in a year or so. But there is also the publicly owned factory, created at the expense of the Government, in which the experiment might well be made of controlling production, as shipping was controlled, or partially controlled, during the War. There could be no complaint of such control of production in Government-owned factories, and that would be an effective check on and a challenge to the privately owned factories. The whole House knows that a costing system affords no practical check on profits. You may have the most perfect costing system without getting any check on profits. When the latest figures published in the financial papers show that profits of between 21 and 82 per cent. on the capital invested have been declared, there is an evident need for some rectification of the rates of profit that are permitted to-day.

Mr. Liddall: Can the hon. Member suggest a method of rectification. What is the point that he is making?

Mr. Adams: I am suggesting that in the Government-owned factories the production should be controlled by the Government, in identically the same way in which it was controlled in certain cases during the War, and certainly in the case of shipping.

Mr. Liddall: Does the hon. Member want to go back to the sort of things that were done during the Great War?

Mr. Adams: It is clear that in the privately-owned concern there is not yet an efficient check on the rates of profit, which, as we have seen from the financial papers during the last week or two, have been from 21 to as much as 82 per cent. on the capital invested. When one considers that the National Defence Contribution this year has produced only £20,000,000 as against the estimate of £25,000,000, it is clear that the manufacture of armaments is a very lucrative industry indeed at the moment. With regard to the machines which we are obtaining from abroad, the Government are to be congratulated on that departure. It is stated that since 1st January £2,340,000 has been spent on warplanes from the United States—and an excellent expenditure it is. With the principle extended to Australia, Canada, and possibly elsewhere, it will be not only of practical value for defence purposes but will be also of high psychological value, indicating to the world the vast financial strength of this country; its world-wide effectiveness in peace and the inevitability of its great power in time of war.
I would like to say a word regarding our air clubs, the Civil Air Guard and Volunteer Reserve training schools. Is it a fact that in certain of these the lists have been closed as the personnel is complete? If so, it seems that we are putting back the clock. It may be that there is a shortage of machines at the moment, but surely that can be overcome. I am advised by those who are interested in municipal airports that the Government seem to be neglecting certain aspects of them, yet the training of pilots and the full use of these municipal airports is as vital as any other aspect of our defence problem.

11.39 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am very much indebted to the House for the observations and questions that have been addressed to me. Although I am naturally gratified at certain personal references that have been made, I am by no means complacent about the work of my Department. I am gratified that progress has been possible, but the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I recognise that there


is a great deal still to be achieved, and we shall do our best to accomplish what remains to be done. I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said in that respect. He put one or two specific questions to me to-night to which I would like to reply. He made a reference to the fact that I was taking steps in relation to profits in the aircraft industry, and I would emphasise, as I emphasised in this House a few days ago, that the reason for these steps is, that in my opinion the circumstances are different to-day to the circumstances which prevailed when the present agreement was negotiated. He also raised, among other matters, the question of promotions from the ranks, on which I would like to say a few words. He asked how that matter was proceeding. The House may know that, as far as the existing arrangements are concerned, there are a certain number of apprentices from the training schools at Cosford, Hal-ton, and Cranwell, who on the completion of their training are granted cadetships at the Royal Air Force College, Cranwell. In those cases all fees, deposits for uniform, books, etc., are remitted and when they have successfully completed the Cranwell course they receive permanent commissions as pilot officers in the General Duties Branch. There are also certain permanent commissions as pilot officers in the General Duties Branch which are awarded annually to a certain number of airman pilots specially recommended. There are, too, a certain number of permanent commissions in the Equipment Branch granted to ex-apprentice clerks who have attained the rank of corporal, and there are also a number of commissions granted annually to warrant officers as commissioned engineer, signals and armament officers. I have the figures, and during last year, 193 men were given commissions from the ranks, including promotions from warrant rank. This year, including certain promotions which will be effected during the next month, the total will be some 300.
As to the question put to me in relation to the mishaps which occurred to certain balloons, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we cannot protect balloons from lightning, but normally balloons are not sent up when lightning is forecast. But equally, raiding aircraft has to suffer in the same way as we do. If there were lightning conditions the

raiding aircraft would meet with the corresponding disadvantage because of electrical interference with radio, which is essential to long distance navigation. But I think that it can be said that normally we do endeavour to avoid conditions of that kind.

Mr. Attlee: Is there no way of insulating at all? I understood that it was the wires that were struck.

Sir K. Wood: I think that is so. I do not think that anything has yet been evolved. The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether the time had been shortened between an accident to an aeroplane and the time it comes back into use after repair. We are endeavouring to deal with that situation. I daresay the right hon. Gentleman has observed that we have been constructing during the past two years certain repair depots, which will be ready this summer. Another repair depot which as temporarily diverted to training purposes will revert to its proper functions in the summer, and further repair depots are being built, and, in my view, this is very essential from the point of view of the question which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me. It would be too early for me to draw any general conclusion about the length of time necessary and as to whether the period for repairs has been lessened. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the steps we have taken will help to that end. He will also agree with me when I remind him that, owing to the complexity of modern aircraft the time taken to repair a crashed machine must of necessity be longer than was the case when we had the older and simpler types. I think I could say that the period has been progressively reduced as the new types have come completely into production, but I should naturally like to be sure of that before I make a definite statement. I hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman that we are taking all essential steps in that direction.
He also put a question about the Air Ministry organisation as a whole. The organisation of the Ministry as a whole and the Departments within it have been constantly under review, particularly during the last 12 months. On the Air Council issues often arise which bring this matter forward. Various changes have already been made. Soon after the expansion started an additional member


of the Air Council was appointed to take charge of certain matters and to relieve the Chief of the Air Staff and the Air Member responsible for Research and Development. Last year a further major reorganisation was made to co-ordinate the technical aspects of production and development by uniting them under the Air Member for Development and Production. We also appointed an additional member of the Council to be specially responsible for production. Similar changes have also been made continually below the Council level itself. Other changes have been the reorganisation of the Department of the Chief of the Air Staff, where a new post of Assistant Chief of the Air Staff has been introduced, and of the Directorates of Contracts, Equipment and Accounts. In all these important branches of the Service steps have been taken in order to deal with particular aspects of administration.
In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's request for information about filling the gap between ourselves and other countries, I must adhere to the statement I made in the House on a previous occasion. The right hon. Gentleman put a question to the Prime Minister on this subject a few weeks ago and my right hon. Friend said, after consultation with me, that he did not think it was in the national interest that he should give a reply. I must maintain that position.
I share the views which the Leader of the Opposition expressed at the conclusion of his speech. He referred to the fact that I had left an office which had to do with the health and housing of the people. I regret very much having had to sever my connection with that Department, but I have had one consolation in the reflection that if you have the best social services in the world, as I believe we have, in the end they all depend upon the security and safety of this country. All these things would go if we were not amply protected. That reflection gives a certain measure of satisfaction to anybody like myself who has to spend all his time now in endeavouring to get a more rapid production of the implements of defence and war.
Let me say a few words on the points raised by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). As he knows, I have stated that we are taking

certain measures in co-operation with France particularly so far as Air Services are concerned. He also asked me about internal Air Services and the payment of subsidy. The position is that payment will not be made until full licences are granted but it will date back to 1st January and the scheme is to operate with effect from that date. Eleven operating companies have been selected for participation, and the subsidy will be based on capacity-ton-miles and it will be possible for a company to earn £15,000 a year in respect of approved licensed services, provided that the sum of £100,000 in all is not reached. The agreement in respect of each service will be laid before Parliament. The hon. Member also made a point about the automatic pilot. We were, in fact, the first in the field with an effective automatic pilot, and I think we have had the best pilot of that kind for many years. We are one of the few countries where mass production methods are now being used for these instruments and there is no shortage.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the Director-General of Civil Aviation and the reorganisation of that Department—whether it is proposed to appoint an acting Director-General in view of the continued illness of the present holder of the office?

Sir K. Wood: That officer is on duty again carrying on his work. I have that Department continually under review and I would desire, if I could, to strengthen it. I feel that we are very much behind as far as civil aviation is concerned. I agree that we have to take a long view of the matter and I hope the day will come when we shall finish with the military side and be able to concentrate more and more on the civil aspect of aviation. I am keeping that in mind and I shall do my best to strengthen that Department. In the memorandum accompanying the Air Estimates it was explained that in 1939 as much as £500,000 was being provided for a greatly enlarged programme of civil aircraft development, including the early production of medium sized all metal land planes of about 18,000 lbs., four engined land planes of 40,000 lbs., a long-range land plane of 70,000 lbs., and further work in connection with the design and construction of still more advanced types of civil aircraft. I do not pretend that we


must not do more, but that is some evidence of what is being done.
As far as railway undertakings are concerned, it is only fair to say that the Cadman Committee reported that the railway companies were making a useful contribution to civil air development. That verdict in their favour should be mentioned in view of some of the suggestions that have been made. I agree with a good many of the criticisms and suggestions that have been made, and I will carefully study them all, because we want to devote a proper proportion of our time to civil aviation. The separation of mails and passengers, for instance, is one of those basic problems which I hope we shall be able to consider during the next 12 months.
The hon. Member for Berwick (Sir H. Seely) referred to some points about coordination, and reinforced what had been said earlier on the War Office Estimates. In view of the increased forces which are now 1o be made available, these are matters which will have to be considered. There was one matter he mentioned which, although of some interest to me, is more a matter for the Post Office, but the case he quoted must be examined by some Ministerial authority. I do not know whether it is really a matter for me, but I will look into it. The hon. Member also raised the question of the planting of trees and asked why it was necessary to get trees from Wiltshire instead of using local trees for planting in front of hangars at Hucknall. The necessity for camouflaging hangars is a matter of some urgency. The trees have to be from 15 to 30 ft. high, and there is no time to wait for them to grow. We have to take large trees that are specially suitable for transplanting, and they have to be found where they are available. If they can be found locally they are always used. On this question of transplanting trees the Department is advised by the expert King's Park Keepers of the Office of Works. As to the particular case the hon. Member mentioned of Hucknall I have no information, but I will ask for it, and let him know.
Several points were raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins). He asked what was the present position and what are our future proposals in regard to the Mayo-composite. This matter has been under special consideration by the Department for some time, but at the

moment no final decision has been reached. He mentioned the Ensign aircraft. Imperial Airways have exercised their right to reject the first five aircraft engines tendered for delivery by the makers. The sixth has been under trial by the company, and I think the trial is likely to be completed in a few days time. I understand that the main cause for the rejection of the Ensigns is that they have been found to be underpowered, and negotiations are proceeding between the company and the firm as to the steps which should be taken. The hon. Member also raised the question of replacing the machines used on the present Empire services. I understand that Imperial Airways are considering this matter, and it should be some encouragement to see the number of new aircraft which are coming along. Of the 15–38 type 14 aircraft are on order; and of the 14–38 type, three are on order, and there are the "G" class boats. It is also true to say that we are trying to get further new designs in that particular connection.
My hon. Friend also raised a matter about the flying boat services. The Empire flying boats were designed to operate at a speed which was considered as high as was reasonable, having regard to the general characteristics required for the transport of the heavy mail loads on the Empire service. A long-range land plane is now being developed, and the desirability of supplementing the flying boat services by fast land plane services operating over stages of 2,000 miles will receive our careful consideration. He also raised the question of South American services. Some progress was made in 1938. A British Airways survey party has visited Portugal, West Africa and South America. Experimental flights were carried out by British Airways between the United Kingdom and Lisbon. A decision has been taken to operate a service throughout the route from this country to Buenos Aires by flying boats, and an effort will be made to make the first south Atlantic crossing before the end of this year.

Mr. Perkins: Will it be a regular service or only experimental.

Sir K. Wood: It will be an experimental service in the first place. My hon. Friend asked about the report on the "Cavalier." I have decided to publish the report in full and it will shortly be available. With reference to ice forma-


tion, we are well aware of the importance of endeavouring to prevent it by all possible means, including the use of such aids as anilol and other preparations. More than two years ago these preparations were compared at Farnborough and it was found that methyl and ethyl alcohol possessed better ice prevention qualities than anilol. We have been concentrating on trying to achieve the simple automatic application of the preparations so that their ice prevention qualities can be brought into play automatically without action on the part of the pilots when aircraft meet icing conditions. This would be by means of automatically controlled injections. My hon. Friend referred to America. It is true that America has made practical use of the preparation, but without automatic functioning, as United States aviation fuel has physical properties which tend to encourage ice formation, and therefore entails greater precautions. Use has been limited to one or two air lines, and the reports I have received from the United States indicate general satisfaction in a limited sphere, but experience has not been such as to lead the air-worthiness authorities to make it compulsory. We are active on the method of injection of alcohols into fuel, and Imperial Airways, the Bristol Aeroplane Company and my Department are at work in colloboration on this and other methods. My hon. Friend also raised the question of the school for pilots. It is true that the Maybury Committee recommendation involved assistance from the State towards the cost of the school when it is set up, but it cannot be set up until the enhanced qualifications which are required in future airline pilots are settled. These are now being thrashed out by a committee of the Air Ministry, the operators and the pilots organisations. We will give assistance as soon as conclusions have been reached in that respect.
As this hour of the night, I would not like to follow the remarks made by my hon. Friend with regard to the future of aviation, particularly military aviation. We all hope that things will improve. This is one of the difficult problems that will face us, but in one sense, the sooner it comes, the better it will be for the world in general. At the present time, however, I should hesitate to say what steps would have to be taken in that direction. I will have regard also to the

points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald).
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood-bridge (Mr. Ross Taylor) raised the question of the sea defences at Felixstowe. Both the Air Ministry and the War Office have made provision in the Estimates for 1939 for a contribution towards the sea defence works at Felixstowe, and the War Office are now discussing with the Felixstowe Urban District Council various details of the scheme with a view to expediting the commencement of the work. With regard to the sea defence works at Orfordness, we have made no special provision, and the extent of the Air Ministry's liability, if any, is not clear, but a representative from my Department will attend a meeting which is to be arranged locally to discuss the matter.
The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) raised a number of points concerning Scotland. I hope the hon. Member will agree with a good many of his friends in Scotland who expressed the view, when I had the pleasure of visiting them, that we had made a real effort to help Scotland. I think the exhibitions that were held in Edinburgh and Glasgow can be said to have been highly successful. Many thousands of people visited both exhibitions, and although it is too early to say what were the specific results, I feel that with regard to recruitment they were very helpful. I hope also that many firms will respond to the opportunities that are afforded with regard to contracts. We are developing the balloon defences at Glasgow. With regard to Abbotsinch, the estimated cost of the building work there is £1,000,000. On grounds of urgency, it was necessary to dispense with competitive tenders, and nine firms were considered, including one Scottish firm. The order was not given to that firm, but it has been stipulated that the steel work required should be carried out by Scottish firms, nominated by my Department, and that as far as possible, Scottish firms should be employed on any further work which it may be necesasry to subcontract and for the supply of materials.

Mr. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman state on what grounds it was considered that there was an emergency with regard to this particular contract, when no such emergency existed with regard to contracts in past years?

Sir K. Wood: This was a very urgent matter. As a matter of fact, I took a special step in regard to the choice of a contractor in this case. The order was a very extensive one, the matter was very urgent, and only a certain number of firms were really qualified to carry out the work. The hon. Member raised the question of a boys' training school in Scotland. All the boys' training establishments are in England, and it is not possible to segregate boys for training in Scotland. Scottish boys are, however, given an opportunity, at the conclusion of their training, to state the locality to which they woud like to be posted. We are endeavouring to meet the position in that way.
The hon. Member also asked a question about the general defence of Scotland. When I had an opportunity of speaking in Glasgow, I gave some details of the steps that we are taking with regard to the defence of Scotland. I emphasised then, as I do again now, that the defence of Scotland and the defence of England are really one problem, particularly in the air; and it is difficult to say how many squadrons we should have here and how many there. We have to take the strategy as a whole. If the hon. Gentleman does me the honour of referring to my observations on that occasion, he will find that I dealt, in rather more detail than would be possible to-night, with that aspect of the matter.
I would say to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) that we are making arrangements for the defences of both Newcastle and Hull but, again, I would point out as regards Newcastle and other areas which have been mentioned, that it is not a question of allocating particular units to specific parts of the country, but of making general and, I think, adequate provision for these and for all parts of the country. I hope the House will feel that I have dealt adequately with the questions which have been put to me. I am very much indebted to hon. Members for the patience with which they have heard me and I hope that I have been able to give them some satisfaction on the points raised in the Debate.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Will the Minister make some reference to the question of radio-telephony, and say what steps are being taken to speed up the process of

dealing with this most important and vital matter?

Sir K. Wood: I had made a note on that question. There are difficulties in regard to that matter. I observed what was said in the Debate by the hon. Member and I know the interest which he, personally, takes in this matter. I can give him the assurance that we are continually studying the problem and that we hope to be able to make some improvements.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Lyons: I hope the House will bear with me while I refer to one or two matters which have not, I think, been sufficiently dealt with yet. Even at this late hour I would like before doing so to express my appreciation of the fulness and clarity with which the right hon. Gentleman has presented these Estimates and answered the various points raised in the discussion. I would, however, ask him to make some statement, not tonight but at the first convenient opportunity, as to when the third-party insurance scheme, recommended by the committee which reported some four years ago, will be brought into operation. Many of us feel that this is a matter about which some information should be forthcoming at once, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give his attention to the question and give a reply at an early date.
On the subject of civil aviation I would point out that this year the Estimate for civil aviation has been increased by £2,000,000, to an amount slightly over £5,000,000. Many of us who realise the vast amount of work that is done and that can be done by civil aviation, both in welding the Empire together and in giving better communications elsewhere, do not object to that amount. But we think that the increased expenditure demands some assurance from the Government that it will mean some fundamental difference as regards measures for achieving the degree of supremacy which we think ought to be established for British external air routes. We are told that the next step is to be the establishment of a corporation which is to merge Imperial Airways with British Airways and remove certain conflicting loyalties which have hitherto faced those companies. We are told that this is to be done with the object of making the


primary consideration the maintenance of British prestige at all costs, as against any conception of profit-making. Many of us have thought, in view of the need which has always existed for large subsidies to assist the establishment of our Empire air routes, that it was better to confine this assistance to one instrument —"a chosen instrument" I think is the phrase which has been used—than to extend it over a number of units which would be in unnecessary competition with each other.
That was the original conception of the Hambling Committee in 1923, and I think that would have continued except for the fact that inadequate subsidies were given year after year, which made it impossible for Imperial Airways to operate the services they ought to have operated, or to show the same disregard for economy as some of their foreign competitors. The result, as we all know, was that we had another committee of inquiry, largely brought about by the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins), namely, the Cadman Committee, which did not hesitate to recommend increased subsidies and suggested some kind of competitive element. Speaking on the Air Navigation Bill on 18th May my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary said the Government had decided that private enterprise, controlled and limited by Statute, should be the principle of the development of civil aviation. With that general statement, I think, the whole House is in substantial agreement, but about six months later that policy seemed to be substantially changed by the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister that the Government had come to the conclusion that a single chosen instrument was most desirable for the development of oversea civil aviation. That meant, in other words, that the original plan of the Hambling Committee was to be retained and the intervening changes meant only additions to the difficulties.
I rise to-night to ask: Is this the last word in connection with the Government's policy for civil aviation? It has been stated over and over again, that as long as the call for National Defence is as urgent as it is to-day, civil aviation must be made a secondary consideration. Is this the policy of the Government, or are we to expect the whole organisation to be

thrown again into the melting-pot with the inevitable result of creating uncertainty? We cannot expect the full benefit to accrue from the appointment of Sir John Reith as a whole-time officer of Imperial Airways, if he is not given clear instructions as to what Government policy is and what the desire of the Government is, in regard to the work which he has to perform. Is the future Imperial Airways to concern itself mainly with the maintenance of British prestige and British civil aviation, regardless of cost, or is it to concern itself with the rapid transport of British mails and British passengers? Are we to compete with the Dutch air lines of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud spoke just now, regardless of economics, of cost, of safety or of comfort? Are we to consider that the loyalty of Imperial Airways to their shareholders should have precedence over their loyalty to the broad interests of the nation? Is their duty to their shareholders to come before their duty to British civil aviation? Are they to regard their organisation as of potential use in any emergency, and, if so, to what extent? Is it the duty of Imperial Airways to try to attract business from every quarter to help them to pay their way, or are they to regard themselves merely as an organisation functioning for the particular benefit of the Post Office?
We must remember that so far as European services were concerned Imperial Airways operated under a severe handicap caused by the late delivery of machines which had been ordered. British Airways is flying all foreign machines and Imperial Airways all British-made machines. It may be said that if there had been foresight this condition of affairs would not have arisen. I do not think that is true. For years Imperial Airways have laboured under the difficulty of not being able to have British-made machines at their disposal, but this is not a matter upon which criticism should be directed to them alone. The other day an American journalist travelling on the service from Bermuda to New York wrote:
We have seen it stated that the British were far behind in commercial aviation, but we can say with all candour that one of the greatest experiences in flying on scheduled air transport lines was a New York bound flight in an Imperial Airways machine. Imperial Airways is four or five years ahead from the point of view of the passenger.


Is it too much to ask, when there is to be this amalgamation between Imperial Airways and British Airways, that the standard which has been reached by Imperial Airways in the face of extreme difficulties shall be maintained? So far as the Government are concerned the Estimates provide for very much increased expenditure upon ground equipment and ancillary services on the Empire routes. Is night-flying in Africa now considered a practical aid to the British flying services to the Cape? Can we fly by night as well as by day over this big route which has done so much to establish the efficiency and the position of Imperial Airways in the welding of Empire communications? I raise these matters at this time because I believe they are important, and I hope that at some early date my right hon. Friend the Secre-

tary of State will give me an answer to the questions which I have put.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.